Trial  and  Conviction 

OP 

JACE  HEYNOLDS 


FOR  THE 

HORRIBIrE  MURDER  OF  WILLIAM  TOWNSEND, 


Compiled  by  A.  H.  HUMMEL,  from  the  Stenographer's  Notes. 


N  E  W    Y  0  R  K  : 
TRADE  SUPPLIED  BY  THE  AMERICAN  NEWS  COMPANY, 
117,  119  &  121  Nassau  Street. 
1870. 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


EDtered,  according  to  Act  of  Congrege,  in  the  year  1870, 
By   A.    H..  HUMMEL, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  tor  the  Southern  District  of  New  Tori!. 

•KP 

21? 

M  85 


BAKER  A  GODWIN,  PRINTERS, 

PRIKTINO-HOUSE  SQUABB.  ^  V  !  ^  |S  3 


/  AVERY 


THE  TEIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS 


 ^♦■^  

The  trial  of  Jack  Reynolds  for  the  atrocious  murder  of  an  inoffensive 
grocer  named  William  Townsend,  on  a  quiet  Saturday  eve,  was  an- 
nounced by  the  New  York  journals  to  take  place  on  Monday  morning, 
February  21st,  1870,  at  half  past  ten  o'clock.  The  morbid  curiosity  to 
witness  the  murderer  was  so  great  that  the  court-room  of  the  Court  of 
Oyer -and  Terminer,  which  is  the  largest  in  the  new  County  Court  House, 
was  crowded  to  excess  long  before  the  trial  commenced.  A  large  portion 
of  the  assemblage  was  composed  of  persons  belonging  to  the  upper  classes 
of  society,  including,  strange  to  say,  many  elegantly  attired  ladies,  who 
watched  the  proceedings  witli  the  utmost  interest.  When  Reynolds  en- 
tered the  court-room  he  was  escoited  by  two  deputy  sheriffs,  and  the 
audience  at  once  arose  to  their  feet,  so  great  was  the  anxiety  to  obtain  a 
view  of  the  reckless  culprit.  His  miserable,  dogged  appearance,  and  ex- 
pressionleps  countenance,  astonished  every  one,  and  a  close  inspection  re- 
vealed a  head  unnaturally  formed.  Throughout  the  entire  trial  he  seemed 
to  pay  but  slight  attention  to  the  details  of  the  evidence,  and  his  counsel 
rarely  consulted  him.  The  widow  and  children  of  the  murdered  man 
occupied  prominent  seats  in  the  extremity  of -the  court-room,  and  remained 
present  until  the  conclusion  of  the  trial.    Punctually  at  half-past  10  o'clock 

Honorable  Daniel  P.  Ingraham, 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  ascended  the  bench,  and  the  crier  an- 
nounced the 

OPENING  OF  THE  COURT, 

after  which,  the  District  Attorney  having  moved  on  the  trial  of  John 
Reynolds  for  the  willful  murder  of  William  Townsend,  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  on  the  29th  day  of  January,  1870,  the  prisoner,  amidst  breathless 
silence,  was  placed  at  the  bar.  The  Jury  was  next  duly  empanelled,  and 
the  trial  commenced. 

TILE  ASSIGNED  COUNSEL. 

Mr.  William  F.  Howe,  was  assigned  by  the  Court  to  defend  the  accused, 
and  had  evidently  made  extensive  prepMrations  to  prove  his  client  "  wo/i 
compos''''  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  awful  deed. 

OPENING  REMARKS  OF  DISTRICT  ATTORNEY. 

Distiict  Attorney,  the  Honorable  Samuel  B.  Garvin,  opened  the  case, 
and  said  : 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  This  is  an  indictment  presented  by  the  grand 
inquest  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York,  against  John  Reynolds, 


4 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


charging  him  with  the  high  crime  of  murder — the  highest  crime  known 
to  our  laws;  and  the  examination  of  this  case  should  not  only  involve  your 
patience  and  your  judgment,  but  it  will  involve,  for  time  and  eternity,  the 
interest  of  the  individual  who  is  on  trial  before  you. 

The  crime  with  which  he  stands  charged  to-day,  was  committed  under 
circumstances  of  great  atrocity;  so  much  so,  that  the  whole  public  were 
not  only  amazed,  but  astounded,  at  the  manner  in  which  this  crime  was 
committed. 

We  have  been,  from  day  to  day,  from  week  to  week,  and  month  to 
month,  in  this  community,  astonished  by  the  character  of  the  crime  which 
pervades  not  only  this  city  but  neighboring  cities.  It  seems  to  be  spread- 
ing all  over  the  country,  so  that  crime  at  this  juncture  of  our  history  seems 
to  be  almost  epidemic  everywhere.  A  man  can  hardly  walk  along  the 
street;  he  can  hardly  go  to  bed  in  his  farm-house  in  the  country;  he  can- 
not go  to  his  home  in  the  city,  without  being  assaulted  either  in  the 
form  of  murder,  or  with  an  attempt  to  rob,  and  take  from  his  person  every- 
thing he  has. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  only  glance  at  this  condition  of  things  for  the  pur- 
pose of  impressing  upon  you  the  importance  giving  this  case  your  care- 
ful and  candid  consideration ;  and,  gentlemen,  when  we  get  through  with 
this  case,  if  you  are  satisfied  that  this  is  a  case  of  murder,  I  ask  you,  by  all 
the  holy  ties  which  bind  you,  that  you  will  give  a  verdict  in  accordance 
with  the  evidence  in  this  case,  and  show  by  your  verdict,  that  when  murder 
is  committed  in  the  city  of  New  York,  it  will  be  surely  punished  by  the 
jury. 

No  matter  how  much  courts  may  do,  or  how  much  the  prosecuting 
officer  may  do,  or  how  often  we  summon  witnesses  into  the  courts  of  jus- 
tice, or  how  fairly  and  freely  they  testify,  it  all  comes  down  in  the  end  to  a 
jury  of  twelve  men.  Unless  the  public  assist,  it  is  impossible  to  administer 
justice. 

Now  gentlemen,  in  this  case,  I  shall  be  able  to  show  you,  as  I  am  in- 
structed by  the  witnesses  I  shall  call  to  the  stand,  that,  on  the  29th  of  Jan- 
uary, 1870,  this  man,  Mr.  Townsend,  was  sitting  in  his  own  house,  sitiing 
there  as  he  had  a  right  to  do  on  his  own  premises ;  and  without  any  sort  of 
provocation  on  his  part,  directly  or  indirectly,  this  poor  miserable  man 
came  into  his  room,  sat  down  in  his  premises,  and  refuses  to  go  out  after  he 
was  told  that  there  was  no  room  for  him  ;  and  Townsend,  gently  laying  his 
hand  on  his  shoulder,  said,  "  you  must  go  away,  I  havn't  room  here  for 
my  own  family,"  and  instantly,  before  Townsend  could  say  another  word, 
he  took  a  knife  from  his  pocket,  and  plunged  it  into  Townsend's  breast, 
from  the  effects  of  which  he  died"  in  the  space  of  ftbout  20  minutes. 

Now  gentlemen,  if  I  give  you  this  stjfite  of  facts,  and  if  you  see  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  statement  of  the  witnesses,  I  shall  ask  you  for  a  verdict  of 
murder  in  the  first  degree,  I  do  not  now  propose  to  dwell  upon  this  state 
of  fcicts,  or  to  discuss  the  question  of  law,  hut  I  will  have  you  go  through 
the  case  with  the  evidence  in  regard  to  this  transaction,  and  let  the  evi- 
dence itself  make  such  an  impression  on  your  minds  as  to  what  your  duty 
commands  you  to  perform. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


5 


THE  DAUGHTER  OF  THE  MURDERED  MAN. 

Lydia  Toiunsend  was  then  called,  and  having  been  duly  sworn,  testified  as 
follows : 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney.)  How  old  are  you,  Lydia  ?  A.  Thirteen 
years. 

Q.  When  were  you  thirteen  years  old  ?  '  A.  The  10th  of  December. 

Q.  Have  you  any  brothers  and  sisters  ?    A.  I  Lave  one  brother. 

Q.  He  is  a  child  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  old  is  your  other  sister  ?    A.  She  is  eleven. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  in  the  latter  part  of  January  last  ? 

A.  I  lived  in  192  Hudson  street. 

Q.  In  the  city  of  New  York  ?    A.  ITes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  father's  name  ?    A.  William  Townsend. 

Q.  What  is  your  sister's  name  ?    A.  Harriet. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  your  little  brother  \    A.  Alfred. 

Q.  What  was  your  father's  business  ? 

A.  He  was  a  tailor,  and  kept  a  grocery  store. 

Q.  At  his  place  in  Hudson  street  ?    A.  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  a  basement  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  steps  did  you  have  to  go  down  to  get  into  your  father's 
grocery  ?    A.  About  five. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  afternoon  or  evening  of  the  29th  of  January? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  in  your  place  at  that  time  ?  A.  About  six  o'clock,  father, 
Harriet,  the  baby,  and  myself,  were  sitting  in  the  place. 

Q.  Are  those  the  only  persons  who  Were  there  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  will  you  tell  whether  you  ever  saw  the  prisoner  there  before 
that  day  ?    A.  No,  sir.  • 

Q.  About  what  time  did"  he  come  there  ?    A.  About  six  o'clock. 

Q.  He  came  down  into  the  basement.  A.  Yes,  sir  ;  right  into  the  base- 
ment. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he  rapped  ?    A.  No,  sir  ;  he  did  not  rap. 
Q.  He  opened  the  door  and  came  in  without  rapping.    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Where  was  your  father  when  he  came  in  ? 
A.  Silting  by  the  table. 

Q.  In  the  front  room  ?    A.  No,  sir  ;  in  the  back  room. 
Q.  Did  you  see  him  when  he  came  into  the  door  ? 
A.  He  walked  right  into  the  room,  and  sat  down  on  a  chair  by  the 
stove.  • 

Q.  In  the  back  room  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  where  my  father  was. 
Q.  He  sat  down  on  a  chair  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Now  state  what  he  said,  if  any  thing? 

"  YOU  ARE  MY  BROTHER." 
A.  He  said  :  "  You  know  me,  I  am  vour  brother ;  1  want  to  stay  here 
all  night." 

Q.  State  what  else  he  said  ? 

A.  Father  said,  "  No,  sir ;  you  are  not  my  brother ;  and  you  cannot  stay 
here  all  night." 

Q.  State  what  else  he  said  ? 

A.  Father  said,  '*  I  haven't  room  in  my  place,  and  won't  you  please  go 


6 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


out?"  and  he  went  out  and  sat  on  a  milk  can,  and  father  went  out  and 
laid  his  hand  gently  on  him. 

Q.  He  said,  "  you  are  not  my  brother,  and  will  you  please  go  out  ? " 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  then  ? 

A.  He  went  out  into  the  store  and  sat  on  a  milk  can. 
Q.  What  did  your  father  say  ? 

A.  My  father  said  it  was  no  us 3  in  sitting  there,  and  said,  "  Come,  good 
fellow,  please  go  out." 

Q.  He  laid  his  hand  on  his  shoulder  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  then  occurred  ?     A,  He  dragged  him  out  on  the  steps. 

Q.  Dragged  whom  out  ?    A.  Father. 

Q.  The  prisoner  dragged  your  father  out  on  the  steps  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Did  you  see  with  what  he  stabbed  your  father  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Judge  Ingraham.  Was  it  light  or  dark  ?    A.  It  was  just  dusk. 

Q.  Was  the  store  lit  up  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Gas  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Lamps  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  {District  Attorney.)  What  occurred  after  he  dragged  him  on  the 
steps  ?    ^.  I  do  not  know,  sir.  .  ' 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ?    A.  1  was  sitting  up  stairs  with  the  baby. 

Q.  Who  else  was  present  when  this  occuiTed  ? 

A.  Harriet,  my  sister. 

Q.  Any  body  else  ?    A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  that  before  you  came  down  ? 

Q.  I  came  down,  and  my  fatker  was  dead. 

Q.  Where  was  he  ?    A.  In  the  back  room. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  On  the  bed  ;  after  father  was  stabbed  he  came  in  and  sat  on  abinch 
in  the  store. 

Q.  Did  you  see  where  he  was  cut  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  on  the  breast  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  The  left  breast  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  bloody  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  went  up  stairs  ?    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  before  you  came  down  ?    A.  About  fifteen  minutes. 
Q,  Now,  at  tbe  time  he  dragged  your  father  to  the  steps,  did  any  men 
come  there  1    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  take  this  man  away, — ^just  describe  what  you  saw? 

A.  Some  men  came  to  take  the  man  away  from  father. 

Q,  Did  they  take  him  away  ?    ^.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Q.  When  your  father  came  in,  you  went  up  stairs  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  prisoner  since  that  time  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  here,  now  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

(The  witness  here  pointed  to  the  prisoner.) 
Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  your  father  lived  after  this  occurrence  ? 
A.  Fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  You  left  him  sitting  on  the  bench  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  When  you  came  down  he  was  dead  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


7 


Cross-examined  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe: 

Q,  Did  this  man  remain  with  your  father  after  he  was  down  on  the 
steps  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  after  he  had  stabbed  him  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  did  not  let  go  his  hold  of  your  father  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  lie  continued  to  hold  him  ?    x\.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  about  how  long  ?    Do  you  remember  ?    ^.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Some  little  while,  was  it?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  then  some  men  came  and  took  him  away  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Harriet  Townsend  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 

Q.  {By  the  District  Attorney.)  How  old  are  you,  Harriet?  A.  Eleven 
years  old. 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  now  ?    ^.192  Hudson  street. 
Q.  "What  was  your  father's  name  ?    A.  William. 
Q.  Is  your  mother  here  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  the  29Lh  of  January  last,  anybody  coming 
into  your  father's  place  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  here  now  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wherels  he?    A.  There  (pointing  to  the  prisoner). 

Q.  When  he  came  in  what  did  he  say  or  do — ^just  go  on  and  tell  ? 

A.  He  came  in,  sat  down  on  a  chair,  and  fither  asked  him  what  he 
wanted,  and  he  said  that  he  wanted  to  stay  all  night,  and  he  was  my  father"*  s 
brother.  , 

Q.  What  else  ? 

A.  Father  said,  no,  sir ;  he  did  not  have  room  enough  for  his  own 
family. 

Q.  What  else? 

A.  My  father  asked  him  if  he  would  not  please  go  out,  and  he  said 
no,  that  he  wanted  to  stay  there,  and  father  said  that  he  hadn't  room 
enough  for  his  own  family.  Then  he  got  up  and  went  out,  and  sat  on  a 
milk  can  in  the  store. 

Q.  That  was  the  front  room  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Father  told  him  that  there  was  no  use  in  sitting  down, 
that  he  could  not  stay,  and  he  put  his  hand  gently  on  his  shoulder,  and 
asked  him  if  he  would  not  please  go  out.  Then  he  got  up  and  stabbed  my 
father,  and  dragged  him  out  on  the  steps. 

Q.  What' next? 

THE  KNIFE. 

A.  Then  a  man  came  up,  and  the  prisoner  had  a  knife  in  his  hand,  and 
th^  man  tried  to  get  the  knife  out  of  his  hand,  and  he  got  it  out  of  his 
hand,  and  took  my  father  up,  and  took  the  min  away.  Then  my  father 
came  in  and  sat  down  on  a  bench,  and  then  he  went  back  into  the  room 
and  lay  down  on  the  bed,  and  tol^  me  to  go  and  fetch  my  mother.  Then 
when  I  came  back  my  father  was  dead. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  place  where  he  stabbed  your  father? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  right  here  (poiuting  to  her  lefi  breast). 


8 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Cross-examined  hy  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe : 

Q.  You  saw  this  man  stab  your  poor  father? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  had  an  overcoat  on  him,  and -he  had  the  knife  in 
his  hand,  and  he  took  his  hand  out  to  stab  my  father,  and  I  went  to  take 
hold  of  my  father's  arm,  ^ind  he  (Reynoldi^)  knocked  me  down. 

Q.  After  he  stabbed  your  fatlier,  did  he  not  keep  hold  of  the  knife  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  ihe  people  tried  to  take  it  away. 

Q.  He  would  not  let  the  people  take  it  away?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  clenched  it  tightly?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  held  possession  of  it,  and  would  not  let  the  people  take  it  away 
from  him  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  struggle  with  the  people,  this  man  ? 

A,  I  think  he  was  laying  down  when  the  men  tried  to  get  the  knife 
out  of  his  hand. 

Q.  He  would  not  give  it  ?    A.  No,  sir;  he  held  it  so  tightly. 
Q.  Did  you  hear  what  he  said  after  he  had  stabbed  your  father. 
A.  No,  sir. 

THE  SHOEMAKER'S  TESTIMONY. 
Thomas  Hudson  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution. 

Q.  {By  the  District  Attorney)  Will  you  state  what  you  know  about 
this  case  ?  • 

A.  January  the  29th,  the  prisoner  came  down  into  the  basement  where 
I  was  to  work. 

Q.  What  is  your  number  ?    A.  188  Hudson  street.  "* 

Q.  City  of  New  York?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  What  is  your  business  ?    A.  Shoemaker. 

Q.  Have  you  a  shop  there?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  prisoner  you  recognize  as  the  man  who  came  in  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  About  what  time?    A.  Six  o'clock. 
Q.  On  the  29th  of  January  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Were  you  to  work  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  State  what  he  did,  if  you  please  ? 

A.  He  came  down  into  the  basement,  and  opened  the  door  and  walked 
in,  and  he  asked  me  to  give  him  a  job,  and  I  told  him  I  could  not,  because 
I  was  on  the  last  job  I  had  ;  and  he  sat  down  on  the  bench,  and  I  asked 
him  what  kind  of  work  he  had  been  accustomed  to,  and  he  s-iid,  pegging. 
He  said  he  was  a  Scotchman,  and  I  said,  "You  have  been  in  the  country  a 
long  while  ;"  and  he  said,  yes  ;  and  for  a  good  while  he  had  been  out  of 
work,  and  hadn't  a  friend  in  the  country;  and  he  got  up  and  bid  me  good- 
night and  went  out. 

Q.  How  far  is  your  place  from  Townsend's  place  ? 

A.  The  next  basement  but  one  on  the  same  side  of  the  street. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  next  ?    A.  On  Sunday,  about  two  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  ?    A.  In  the  police  station. 

Q.  Did  you  miss  anything  from  your  shop  after  he  went  out  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Was  anything  missed  from  there  ? 


THE  TRI^iL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


9 


THE  STOLEN  WEAPON  OF  MURDER. 

A.  After  Mr.  Arnold  came  in  he  went  to  cut  a  parcel,  and  he  missed  his 
knife. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  knife  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  one  with  a  red  handle;  it  had  been  broken  but  was  fixed 
again. 

Q.  It  was  your  knife  ?    A.  Yes,  sir.  • 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe  : 

Q.  You  never  saw  this  man  before  that  day  ?    ui.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  it  ?    A.  Six  o'clock  in  the  evening. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  rationnlly  to  you  ?    A.  Ye-,  sir  ;  very  quietly. 

Q.  He  said  the  place  of  his  nativity  was  Scotland?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  asked  you  for  work  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
*  Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  in  your  premises  ? 

A.  About  three  or  four  minutes. 

Q.  He  talked  quietly  during  that  time  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  peculiar  about  his  appearance  or  language  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  but  his  face  seemed  to  be  somewhat  scarred. 

Q.  That  w^as  the  only  peculiarity  you  noticed.   A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  alL 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  last  words  he  spoke  to  yoQ  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  they  ?    ^.  He  said,  "  Good-night.'" 

Q.  Then  left  ?  A.  Yes,  sir.  When  he  went  out,  I  turned  the  key,  bat 
cause  he  was  in  drink,  and  I  thoufjht  he  might  come  back. 

Q.  Your  place  of  business  is  situated  how  ?    A.  It  is  in  a  basement. 

Q.  He  had  then  to  ascend  how  many  steps  to  leave  ?  A.  About  five 
or  six. 

Q.  Did  you  watch  him  leave  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  He  went  directly  up  the  steps?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  And  away  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Thomas  Arnold  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 

Q.  (By  District  Attorney).  Where  were  you  w^orking  about  the  29th  of 
January  ?    ^.188  Hudson  street. 

Q.  Did  you  sometimes  go  into  the  shop  of  the  last  witness  ? 
-A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  work  there  ;  it  is  my  place. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  going  in  there  in  the  evening,  about  six  or  seven 
o'clock,  and  missing  any  property  of  yours  ? 

A.  I  went  out  just  before  six  o'clock  to  a  finding  store  in  Greenwich 
street,  and  I  think  I  was  gone  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  and  when  I  came 
b;ick  the  door  was  locket),  and  I  said  to  my  workman,  "  What  have  you  the 
door  locked  for?  and  he  told  me  that  he  had  a  customer  there  that  he  did 
not  much  like  from  his  appearance.  He  said  that  he  bolted  the  door  so 
that  he  should  not  come  back  ;  and  I  then  sat  down  and  was  about  to  cut 
a  parcel  which  I  bought — and  previous  to-  that,  when  I  was  going  up,  I 
heard  there  was  a  man  stabbed,  but  I  did  not  know  who  it  was,  and  did 
not  ask — and  I  mi-sed  the  knife,  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  anything  about 
it,  and  he  said  "No  ;"  and  he  said  this  man  (Reynolds)  had  sat  in  my 
seat; 'and  I  looked  again,  but  could  not  find  it  any  where;  and  I  said, 
"  Surely,  he  has  not  stolen  my  knife."  So  I  coiild  not  find  my  knife,  and 
when  I  made  inquiries  I  found'  it  was  gone. 


10 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  Do  you  see  the  knife  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  see  it  now.    (The  witness  was  shown  it.) 

Q.  Is  that  your  knife  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  was  it  when  you  left  it? 

A.  It  was  fastened  with  a  piece  on  it. 

Q.  When  you  saw  it  again  it  was  broken  ?    A.  Ye',  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  see  it  after  it  was  taken  ? 

A.  1  saw  it  in  the  police  station. 

Q.  Was  it  there  in  your  shop  when  you  went  out  to  the  finding  store? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  on  my  bench. 

Q.  When  you  came  back  it  was  gone  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

(No  questions  by  Mr.  Howe.) 
Thomas  J.  Belcher  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 

Q.  {By  the  District  Attorney)    Where  do  you  reside  ?  « 
A.  66  Varick  street. 

Q.  Did  you  reside  there  on  the  29th  of  January  last  ?    A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Where  then  ?    ^.189  Hudson  street. 
Q.  State  what  you  first  saw  of  this? 

A.  I  heard  a  distressing  cry  opposite  189  Hudson  street,  and  I  thought 
some  one  was  run  over;  and  I  went  out  of  the  house,  and  there  was  a  car 
going  along,  and  I  looked  across  the  street  and  saw  a  scuflSe  going  on,  and 
I  went  across  ;  and  as  I  was  putting  my  foot  oa  the  curbstone  I  saw  Town- 
l^nd  on  the  prisoner. 

THE  MURDERER  CAUGHT. 
As  I  got  up  to  him  the  prisoner  freed  himself  from  Townsend,  and  then 
I  caught  him. 

Q.  You  caught  the  prisoner?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Is  this  the  man  ?  (pointing  to  Reynolds). 

A.  I  did  not  know  him  at  all ;  I  saw  him  at  the  coroner's  inquest. 
Q.  St^te  what  further  happened.    You  say  that  he  freed  himself  from 
Townsend  ? 

THIS  MAN  STABBED  ME. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  I  asked  what  was  the  matter,  and  he  said  "  This  man 
stabbed  me,"  and  he  opened  his  shirt,  and  he  was  all  covered  with  bloody 
and  he  (Townsend)  asked  me  if  I  could  hold  him  (Reynolds),  and  I  said  I 
could,  and  the  prisoner  then  made  an  attempt  to  get  away,  and  he  said  : 
*'  If  you  will  give  me  a  sight,  I  can  lick  two  like  you." 

Q.  What  else  was  said  or  done? 

A.  lie  tried  to  get  away  from  me,  and  he  struck  me  twice  on  the 
shoulder. 

Q.  Twice,  you  say  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  twice  on  the  left  shoulder.  Then  I  threw  him,  and  we  fell 
on  the  sidewalk  together,  and  I  held  him  there  till  the  oflScer  came. 

Q.  State  in  what  condition  he  (Townsend)  was  in  ? 

A,  I  went  to  Townsend  and  asked  him  was  he  hurt  much,  and  he  said 
he  was ;  and  one  of  the  oflScers  came  along  and  wanted  him  to  make  a 
charge  against  the  prisoner,  and  Townsend  said  he  was  not  able  to  go 
around  to  the  station-house ;  and  he  picked  up  a  piece  of  the  knife  and  he 
said,  "That  is  a  piece  of  the  knife  that  he  stabbed  me  with.'! 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


11 


Q.  Townsend  picked  up  the  piece  of  the  knife?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Was  it  anything  like  this?  (pointing  to  the  knife).    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Was  it  tiie  piece  or  the  knife  he  picked  up?    A.  It  was  the  blade. 
Q.  Do  you  know  whether  any  one  in  the  meantime  took  the  knife  from 
him  (Reynolds)  ?    A.  I  did  not  know  it  until  afterward. 
Q.  You  do  not  know  who  did  that  ?    A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Wh:it  was  then  done  ? 

A.  He  (Townsend)  went  into  the  back  room  and  lay  down,  and  I  gave 
him  a  drink  of  water,  and  his  legs  and  feet  were  hanging  on  the  floor  ;  and 
I  leaned  against  him,  and  he  said  that  I  hurt  him. 

While  1  tried  to  open  his  shirt  to  see  the  wound,  he  said  I  hurt  him. 

(Mr.  W.  F.  Howe  here  objected  to  witness  testifying  to  his  conversation 
with  the  deceased.    Objection  overruled  and  exception  taken«) 

Q,  Go  on  and  state  what  he  said  ? 

DEATH  OF  MR.  TOWNSEND. 

A.  He  said,  "My  God,  I  am  suffocating!  Give  me  air."  I  think 
those  were  the  last  words  he  said. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  he  died  ? 

A.  From  the  time  I  left  the  street  till  I  got  into  the  basement,  I  think 
it  was  about  six  minutes. 

Q.  This  was  192  Hudson  street  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  Mr.  Townsend's  business  ?    A.  Grocer. 

Q.  How  long  had  he  been  ihere  ?    A.  1  do  not  know,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe : 

VIOLENCE  OF  THE  PRISONER. 

Q.  You  say  the  prisoner  resisted  you  very  violently  ?    A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  say  anything?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  overcome  him? 

A.  About  two  or  three  minutes,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Did  he  offer  you  any  violence?    A.  He  did. 

Q.  You  had  to  overcome  that  by  violence  yourself? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  1  had  to  throw  him  to  keep  him. 

Q.  Had  he  the  knife  in  his  hand  at  the  time? 

A.  No,  sip;  I  did  not  see  it  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Kline  there  ? 

A.  Mr.  Kline  was  there  ;  there  were  two  gentlemen  there  before  I  went. 
Q.  The  prisoner  was  quite  frenzied  ?    Yes,  sir. 

WAS  HE  FRENZIED  ? 

Judge  Ingraham.    What  do  you  mean  by  frenzied? 
A.  I  thought  the  counsel  meant  rough. 
Mr.  Howe.    Was  he  violent?    A.  lie  was. 

Q.  Was  he  rough?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  wild? 

A.  He  was  about  as  wild  as  any  criminal  could  be. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  any  criminals  in  a  wild  state?  (Laughter.) 

A,  Yes,  sir ;  I  h^ve  seen  the  prisoner  quite  wild. 


12 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  Didn't  this  man  attack  you  ?    Haven't  you  said  so  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  while  I  had  hold  of  him. 
Q.  Did  he  speak  to  you  ?    A.  He  did. 
Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

SHOW  ME  A  SIGHT. 

A.  He  said,  "Show  me  a  sight  you  son  of  a  ,  and  I  will  lick  two 

like  you." 

Q.  Did  he  threaten  to  kill  you  ?    A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  W^hen  you  overpowered  him,  to  whom  did  you  cocsign  him  ? 

A.  To  the  officers ;  a  sergeant  and  a  roundsman. 

Q.  Was  his  appearance  anything  but  that  of  a  wild  man,  as  you  stated 
at  the  time  ? 

A.  T  could  not  say;  it  w^as  dark,  and  under  the  excitement  I  did  not 
know  him  in  half  an  hour  after  that  time. 

Q.  Since  you  have  told  us  that  he  was  rough  and  wildy  vi'iW  you  tell  us- 
if  you  noticed  anything  else  about  his  appearance  ? 
.  A.  I  thought  he  had  been  drinking. 
Q,  That  was  but  a  thought  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  act  like  a  sane  man  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  he  was  sane. 
Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  that.    I  asked  you  how  did  he  act? 
A.  W^ell,  he  acted  in  a  violent  degree. 

John  Scnlly  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution : 
;  Q.  (Bt/  the  District  Attorney)  Where  do  you  live  ? 
'  A.  21  Bethune  street. 
Q.  Were  you  in  the  neighborhood  of  192  Hudson  street  on  the  29th 
of  January  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  • 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  over  there  ?    A.  I  was  going  for  my  wife. 

Q.  State  what  attracted  your  attention,  and  what  you  saw  ? 

A.  I  was  passing  up  and  saw  two  men  in  contact  with  each  other  at 
.192  Hudson  street,  and  I  saw  Mr.  Townsend  having  hold  of  the  prisoner 
in  the  scuffle,  and  some  persons  came  up  and  asked  what  was  the  matter, 
and  Mr.  Townsend  said — 

THE  FATAL  BLOW.  , 

"  This  man  is  after  stabbing  me."  Some  one  then  took  a  knife  out  of  his 
(Reynolds')  hand. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  the  knife  looked  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Perfect  or  broken  ? 

A.  Broken ;  it  was  broken  when  I  took  it  out  of  his  hand. 
Q.  What  kind  of  a  knife  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  around  handled  knife,  and  over  an  inch  long. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  knife  afterward  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  it?    (The  knifq  was  here  shown  to  witness.) 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  some  one  sang  out  and  asked  what  was  the  matter, 
and  Mr.  Townsend  made  the  reply  and  said,  that  man  (R.)  was  after  stab- 
bing him,  and  then  an  officer  came  up  and  got  hold  of  the  prisoner,  and  I 
gave  part  of  the  knife  to  one  of  the  officers,  and  he  took  it  to  the  station 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


13 


house,  and  I  weut  to  the  station-house  and  gave  evidence,  and  I  had  to 
come  back  that  way  to  go  home,  and  on  my  way  back,  I  found  that  Mr. 
Townsend  was  dead. 

Q.  He  died  on  his  b^d  in  his  own  housp.    A,  Yes,  sir. 

Judge  Ingraham.    Where  was  this  scuffle  ? 

A.  About  two  or  three  steps  down  from  the  sidewalk. 
Cross  examined  hij  Mr.  Howe  : 

Q.  This  prisoner  held  the  knife  very  tightly  in  his  gra-p,  did  he  not. 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  And  when  you  tried  to  take  it  from  him  he  resisted  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q,  Held  it  with  tenacity  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  some  time  after  the  unfortunate  .deceased  had  been 
stabbed.    A.  Yes,  sir;  some  minutes. 

Q,  [District  Attorney.)    Do  you  see  the  prisoner  here  now  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

William  Wuhh  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 

Q.  [By  District  Attorney.)  Were  you  present  when  this  transaction 
took  place  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ?    A.  I  was  at  202  Hudson  street. 

Q.  What  attracted  your  attention  to  this  thing  first  ? 

A.  I  heard  some  screaming,  and  I  ran  to  the  place,  and  I  saw  Mr. 
Townsend  on  the  two  upper  steps,  and  Reynolds  was  lying  on  his  back 
and  Townsend  on  top  of  him,  and  two  other  citizens  were  there  at  the 
time,  and  I  saw^  them  struggling,  and  I  did  not  know  what  was  the  matter 
at  the  time;  and  I  caught  hold  of  Reynolds  by  the  collar  and  looked  in  his 
face,  and  I  said  "What  are  you  holding  on  to  him  for,"  and  I  said  "get  up 
off  him  ;  "  and  I  had  hold  of  hi  in  by  the  collar,  and  he  got  up  the  two  steps, 
and  I  got  the  prisoner  up  on  the  top  of  the  steps  ;  and  Townsend  said,  "  My 
God,  tliat  fellow  has  stabbed  ms  and  I  don't  know  what  for;  "  and  I  saw 
the  blood  on  the  vest  of  Mr. townsend,  and  I  said  "Oh,  God,  you  are 
stabbed  to'  the  heart,"  and  he  said  "  Is  there  no  one  to  do  anything  for 
me?  "  and  I  w^ent  to  get  hold  of  the  prisoner,  and  two  other  citiaens  had 
him,  and  I  held  on  to  him,  and  two  officers  came  across,  and  I  attracted 
their  attention,  and  they  came  and  threw  him  down,  and  I  helped  them  to 
take  liim  to  the  station-house,  and  I  took  hold  of  his  legs,  and  he  cursed 
several  limes,  and  asked  for  a  fair  show  on  the  way  down.  When  I  got 
back  to  the  store  I  saw  the  man  was  dead. 

Q.  When  you  got  back  to  his  (Townsend's)  house  you  found  him 
dead.    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Di'd  you  see  any  more  woundS  than  the  one  on  his  breast? 

A,  Some  one  passed  the  remark  that  he  had  a  cut  on  his  arm. 

Q.  You  did  not  notice  that  yourself?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  down  to  the  station-house  ? 

A.  About  fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  He  died  then  in  about  twenty  minutes  afterward? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  less  time  than  that. 
Cross-examined  hy  Mr.  Howe  : 

Q.  The  prisoner  did  not  say  anything  about  having  stabbed  the 
deceased.    -/I.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not. 

Q.  Was  not  this  prisoner  quite  frenzied  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Well,  sir ;  he  acted  like  a  rough. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  roughs  act  ? 


14 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


A.  I  see  them  when  they  commit  things  out  of  the  way  and  against 
the  law  ;  that  is  what  I  term  a  rough — I  mean  a  man  that  don't  do 
justice. 

Q.  That  is  your  definition  of  a  rough  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  "What  injustice  did  you  Fee  this  man  do  ? 

A.  I  saw  Mr.  Townsend  and  him  fighting  on  the  steps,  or  tussling  on 
the  step=i ;  I  saw  them  holding  on  or  clenching  each  other  on  the  steps. 
Q.  From  that  you  call  him  a  rough  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Was  his  manner  peaceable,  or  was  it  wild  ? 

THE  MURDERER  WILD. 
A,  Well,  sir  ;  it  seemed  to  -be  wild. 

■  Q.  Did  he  try  to  assault  you  ?    A.  He  tried  to  get  away  from  me,  sir. 
Q,  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question  ;  did  he  try  to  assault  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  he  the  knife  in  his  hand  then  ?    ^.  I  do  not  know,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  delivered  to  the  police  ofiicers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  helped  to  take  him  to  the  station-house. 

Q.  Did  he  talk  going  along  to  the  station-house  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  made  several  attempts  to  get  away  from  us;  he  asked  for  a  fair 
show. 

Q.  What  else  ? 

A.  He  called  the  officers,  and  us  who  w^ere  with  them,  sons  of  

Q.  Are  you  as  sure  of  tbat  as  anything  else  you  have  sworn  to  ? 
A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  he  applied  that  epithet  to  the  officer  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  to  the  officer,  to  me,  and  another  man. 
Q„  Did  you  say  that  before  the  coroner?' 

A.  I  am  not  quite  sure  ;  I  believe  I  did  say  so,  or  something  to  that 
effect;  jjo,  sir  ;  I  did  not! 

Q.  Did  he  talk  wildly  and  incoherently  ? 
A.  He  talked  savagely  to  get  away. 
Q.  Did  he  walk  ? 

A.  We  carried  him  down  as  far  as  Laight  street,  and  I  got  his 
legs  up  in  my  arms,  and  we  dragged  his  feet  out  of  his  boots,  and  we  finally 
dropped  him  on  his  feet,  and  he  w^alked  from  that  dow^n  to  the  station- 
house. 

A,  He  resisted  all  the  time?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  several  times. 
Q.  Did  you  see  him  put  in  the  cell  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  but  I  stood  while  the  charge  was  being  taken  against  him^ 
and  saw  the  officers  taking  him  away. 

Q.  When  he  was  taken  to  the  station-house,  did  they  place  him  against 
the  railino^  immediately  in  front  of  the  captain's  desk  ?    A.  They  did,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  prisoner  stand  in  front  of  that  railing?     A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Alone  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  police  sergeant  behind  the  desk  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Did  the  police  sergeant  ask  the  prisoner  his  name  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Did  he  give  it?    A.  Yes,  sir;  Jack  Reynolds. 
Q.  Did ^ the  sergeant  ask  him  where  he  was  born  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  EEYNOLDS. 


15 


Q.  What  reply  did  he  make  ?    A.  United  States. 
Q.  Was  his  fige  asked  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  was,  sir ;  but  I  was  in  conversation  with  the  officers  at 
the  time. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  a  reply  to  that  ?    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  sergeant  apprise  him  of  the  charge  made  against  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  hear  that,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  all  the  conversation  which  transpired  ? 
A.  He  asked  him  what  his  occupation  was. 
Q.  What  did  he  say  ?    A.  lie  sai<l — a  thief. 

"I  AM  A  THIEF!!!" 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  before  the  coroner  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  I  was  not  asked  that,  sir. " 

Q.  This  is  the  first  time  you  have  said  that,  is  it?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Well,  after  he  told  the  sergeant  he  was  a  thief,  as  you  say,  did  they 
take  him  down  stairs  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  when  ail  was  taken,  the  sers^eant  said,  "That  Avill  do," 
aud  he  told  the  officers  to  search  him,  and  they  did,  and  I  saw  the  officers 
take  him  away. 

Q.  (Bt/  the  District  Attorney.)  Have  you  given  us  all  the  con  versa- 
^  tion  or  remarks  you  heard  made  by  the  prisoner  from  the  time  you  arrested 
him  till  you  left  him  in  the  station-house  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  given  all  that  he  said?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  carried  part  of  the  way,  and  walked  the  rest.  Is  that  all 
that  you  remember  him  doing? 

A.  I  recollect  his  s'ruggling  with  Mr.  Townsend. 

Q.  Anything  else?    A.  Well,  I  believe  that  I  stated  all  that  I  know. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  this  prisoner  as  the  same  man  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  the  man  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

,Q.  He  was  dressed  then  as  now  ? 

A.  About  the  same,  I  guess  ;  he  had  a  hat,  and  his  boots  dropped  off 
him.    I  tlfink  he  has  a  better  pair  of  pants  now  than  he  had  then. 

Peter  Kline  sworn  and  examined  : 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney.)   Where  do  you  live  ?   A.  Jersey  City. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  neighborhood  of  192  Hudson  street  on  the  29th 
of  last  January?  .Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  came  you  there  ?    Ai.  I  was  on  my  way  home. 

Q.  What  attracted  your  attention  to  this  particular  thing  ? 

A,  I  heard  a  little  girl  dying  murder. 

Q,  When  you  got  over  there,  what  was  the  first  thing  you  saw  ? 
A.  I  saw  Mr.  Townsend  and  a  man  struggling. 

Q.  Where  ?    A.  On  the  steps  of  the  basement,  leading  into  the  store. 
Q.  What  kind  of  a  struggle  was  it  ?    A.  Mr.  Townsend  was  on  top. 
Q.  What  else  did  you  see  ?    A.  I  saw  the  prisoner  underneath  him. 
Q.  Did  he  have  anything  in  his  hand  ?    A.  He  did. 
Q.  State  what?    A.  It  was  something  like  aknife. 
Q.  State  what  was  said  or  done. 

A.  The  little  girl  said  :  "He  stabbed  my  father ;  and  see,  he  has  a 


16 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  EEYNOLDS. 


knife  in  his  hand,"  and  I  grabbed  his  wrist  and  held  his  hand  down  to  the 
ground. 

Q.  Was  the  knife  like  that.     (The  knife  in  question  was  shown  to  the 
witness.)    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  similar  to  that ;  the  blade  was  very  short. 
Q.  Now  state  what  you  did  after  that  ? 

A.  I  seized  his  wrist,  and  held  it  firmly  to  the  ground,  and  shouted 
"police,"  and  a  man  named  Scully  came  up,  nnd  I  explained  the  circum- 
stances to  him,  and  I  told  hira  to  take  the  knife  from  the  prisoner's  hand. 

Q.  "Where  did  the  deceased  go  to  then?  A.  He  lose  up,  and  I  saw 
him  afterward  in  the  house,  and  the  prisoner  lay  still  for  about  a  moment, 
then  jumped  up  and  undertook  to  run  away,  and  I  gi  abbed  him. 

Q.  What  followed?    A.  He  was  taken  to  the  station-house. 

Q.  Did  you  sec  Mr.  Townsend  in  the  bed  ? 

"  AGONY  OF  THE  CHILDREN." 

A.  No,  sir;  the  children  were  crying,  and  I  thought  there  was  enough 
in  the  room  without  me  going  in.  I  understood  that  the  doctor  had  been 
sent  for,  and  I  went  in  about  five  minutes  after,  and  found  Mr.  Townsend 
dead. 

Q.  He  was  lying  in  the  bed  ?    A.  Ye?,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  observ^e  at  the  time  \shether  the  prisoner  was  intoxicated  or 
not  ? 

A.  I  did  not;  he  did  not  appear  so;  he  jumped  up  too  soon,  I  think, 
for  a  drunken  man. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  prisoner  now  ? 

A.  I  do  not ;  it  was  after  dark,  and  I  was  pa}  ing  attention  to  the  hand 
the  knife  was  in,  and  in  the  scufl3e  I  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  him  ; 
I  judged  from  his  size  that  he  was  not  much  taller  than  myself,  when  he 
got  up. 

Cross-examined  hy  Mr.  W.  F.  Hoive  : 

Q.  You  say  that  Mr.  Scully  and  yourself  took  the  knife  from  his  grasp  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  some  minutes  after  the  deceased  had  been  stabbed  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  how  many  minutes  ;  the  deceased  himself  showed  me 
where  he  had  been  stabbed. 

THE  KNIFE  TIGHTLY  GRASPED.       .  . 

Q.  The  prisoner  held  the  knife  with  a  tight  grasp,  did  he  not?    A.  Ye>, 

sir. 

Q.  I  presume  so  much  so,  that  you  had  to  exert  yourself  to  get  it  from 
him  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  His  mouth  was  clo=e  to  you  ?  A.  Yes,  sir ;  not  very  close. 

NO  LIQUOR.  . 

Q.  You  say  there  was  no  perceptible  smell  of  liquor  upon  him  ?  No, 

sir. 

Q.  Nor  were  his  actions  those  of  a  drunken  man  ?  A.  He  did  not  ap- 
pear so  the  time  he  jumped  up.  * 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


17 


THE  POLICE  SERGEANT. 
Matthew  Tuck  swoin  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 
Q.  {By  the  District  Attorney.)  You  are  a  police  officer?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Were  you  so  on  the  29th  of  January  last  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  on  the  force  ?    A.  Four  years. 
Q.  State  what  attracted  your  attention  to  this  place,  and  wh-.U  yoa  saw 
and  heard  ? 

A.  A  few  minutes  after  6  o'clock,  on  the  29th  of  January,  I  was  stand- 
ing in  Hudson  street,  nearly  opposite  192,  and  I  heard  the  cry  of  a  man 
being  stabbed,  and  I  went  across  the  street  and  saw  a  crowd  there; 
and  I  saw  Mr.  Townsend  standing  there,  bleeding;  very  much  from  the 
breast,  and  some  one  in  the  crowd  said,  "  This  is  the  man."  I  then  Tol- 
lowed  Reynolds,  who  was  at  this  time  struggling  to  get  away,  and  he  said 
tome,  "  Give  me  a  fair  show,"  and  I  conveyed  him  to  the  station-house. 
On  the  road  he  acted  violently,  and  some  one  said,  "  Hang  him  !  "  They 
proposed  to  hanor  him  right  there,  and  he  made  the  remark,  "Hanging  is 
played  out !  Hanging  is  played  out  I "  I  took  him  to  the  station- 
house,  and  afterward  returned,  and  saw  Townsend  laying  dead  on  his  bed. 

Q,  Is  this  the  mm  you  took  to  the  station-house  ?    ^4.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  the  wounds  ?  A.  About  three  inches  above  the  nipple 
of  the  left  breast. 

Q.  Any  other  wound  ?  A.  I  did  not  see  any  other,  except  small 
scratches  on  his  face. 

Cross  excunined  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe: 

Q.  Did  you  notice  the  appearance  of  the  prisoner  a];  the  time  you  ar- 
rested him  ?    ^-1.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  Does  he  not  look  quite  respectable  to-day,  to  what  he  did  then  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  all  dirt,  on  account  of  his  having  been  on  the 
ground  before  I  got  there. 

Judge  Ingraham.  Was  he  in  liquor?  A.  I  think  he  was  under  the 
influence  of  liquor. 

Mr.  Howe.   Sergeant,  you  were  in  the  16th  X.  Y.  Cavalry,  I  believe  .- 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  know  any  of  your  men  to  have  epileptic  fits? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  not  while  I  was  in  the  16th. 

Q.  Whilst  you  were  in  any  other  company  or  corps  ?    A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  man  with  an  epileptic  fit  in  your  life  : 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  this  man  peculiarly  wild  ? 

A.  Well,  he  looked  and  acted  like  a  man  who  was  trying  to  make  his 
escape. 

Q.  Does  a  man  who  is  trying  to  get  away,  present  any  difierent  ap- 
pearance to  any  other  man  ?  A.  When  a  man  gets  excited,  he  has  a  dif- 
ferent appearance. 

RATHER  EXCITED. 
Q.  Then  this  prisoner  was  excited  ] 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I  guess  he  was,  rather. 

Q.  Now  sergeant,  when  you  say  "  rather  "  excited,  you  mean  very 
greatly  excited. 


18 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


A.  Yes,  sir  ;  lie  looked  like  a  man  who  was  trying  to  free  himself^ 

Didn't  he  look  as  if  he  was  very  much  excited  ? 
A.  Well,  he  did. 
Q.  He  talked  incoherently  ? 
jfi.  I  did  not  hear  him  speak  only  twice. 

Q.  Weren't  you  with  that  witness  who  said  that  he  called  you  and  him 
opprobrious  names  ? 

A.  Once  he  said  "  Give  me  a  fair  show,"  and  next,  "  Hanging  is 
ayed  out." 

Q.  You  didn't  hear  him,  on  the  way  to  the  station-house,  call  you  those 
names  the  other  witness  mentioned?    A.  No,  sir. 

*  Q.  In  the  station-house,  was  he  placed  before  the  railing  in  front  of 
the  sergeant's  desk?    A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  int«rrogated  in  the  usual  manner  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  questions  propounded  by  yourself? 

A.  No,  sir;  by  another  sergeant. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  hira  answer  the  questions  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  some  of  them. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  he  answer  them  ? 

A.  I  heard  him  say,  when  the  sergeant  asked  him  what  he  did  for  a 
living ;  he  said  he  was  was  a  thief. 

Q.  Any  more  than  that  ?    A,  He  gave  his  name. 
Q.  What  name  ?    A.  Jack  Reynolds. 
Q.  Was  he  asked  for  his  residence? 
A.  I  did  not  hear-that  part  of  it. 
Q.  That  is  usiiial,  is  it  not? 

A.  The  sergeant  behind  the  desk  generally  pays  more  attention  to 
that. 

Q.  Is  that  sergeant  here  ?    A.  I  do  not  see  him. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  said  he  had  a  residence,  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  how  long  was  he,  what  period  of  time  was  he,  before  that 
desk?    A.  I  should  say  three,  or  four,  or  five  minutes. 

Q.  He  stood  up  in  front  of  the  railing  there  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  He  was  not  held  up  ?    A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  You  mean  by  that,  that  he  was  sober. 

A.  A  man  may  stand  up,  and  yet  be  drunk.  He  was  slightly  under 
the  influence  of  liquor,  as  I  heretofore  stated. 

SLIGHTLY  UNDER  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  LIQUOR. 

Q.  Others  differ  with  you  ?    A.  I  speak  from  my  own  knowledge. 
Q.  Was  he  in  that  condition,  that  if  you  had  met  him  in  the  street, 
you  would  have  arrested  him  as  a  drtmken  man  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  I  would  not. 
Q.  Then  he  was  not  what  you  call  drunk  ? 

A.  Not  helplessly  drunk.    He  was  under  the  influence  of  liquor. 

Q.  You  said,  before  the  coroner,  slightly  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  You  difler  with  the  last  witness  ? 

A.  I  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  it. 

Q.  You  didn't  smell  any  liquor  upon  him?    A.  I  did. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


19 


Q.  Could  you  tell  what  liquor  it  was? 

A.  Well,  I  coukl  not.  I  smelled  something  like  whiskey.  I  went 
down  to  the  cell  afterward,  and  smelt  it  on  him. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  like  whiskey  ? 

A.  I  know  the  smell  of  whii^key.  (Laughter.) 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  knife  in  this  man's  hand  ?    A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Was  he  violent  in  the  station-house  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Quiet?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Quite  tractable  and  quiet  in  the  station-house  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Going  along  very  wild  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  was,  at  first. 

Q.  He  was  put  into  a  cell  in  the  station-house  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  ?    A.  I  think  about  15  or  20  minutes  after  C. 

Q.  Was  he  visited  by  any  of  your  ofiicers  ? 

A.  He  was  visited  by  me. 

Q.  Did  you  find  him  asleep  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

TDE  MURDERER  SLEEPS. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  go  to  sleep  ? 

A.  I  can't  tell  what  time  he  went  to  sleep. 

Q.  What  was  the  last  time  you  saw  him  that  night  ? 

A.  About  an  hour  after  he  was  locked  up. 

Q.  Was  that  the  last  time  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  That  was  the  last  time  I  believe  that  I  saw  him  that  night, 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  morning?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  awake  then  ?    A.    Yes,  sir ;  he  wa«. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  officer  visited  him  during  the  night  ? 

A.  I  do  not ;  the  doorman  is  instructed  to  look  after  them. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  officer  awoke  him  from  his  sleep  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  (Bu  the  District  Attorncij.)    You  said  he  was  quite  wild  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii-. 

Q.  You  mean  that  he  attempted  to  get  away  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tliat  is  what  you  mean  by  callino-  him  wild  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  [Mr.  Howe.)  He  struggled  and  hit  out?    A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did,- 

Frank  W.  Robb  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney.)    How  long  have  you  been  connected 
with  the  Police  Department?    A.  Three  years. 
Q.  Were  you  present  at  any  |»art  of  this  aff'air  ? 

A.  I  came  up  when  they  had  hold  of  the  prisoner  on  the  sidewalk  iu 
front  of  the  place  where  this  aftair  occurred. 
Q.  Did  you  see  the  knife  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  any  one  hand  it  to  you?.    A.  Mr.  Scully  handed  it  to  me. 

Q.  It  was  a  knife  like  this? 

(The  witness  was  here  shown  the  knife  in  question.) 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  the  knife  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Di^l  you  take  the^knife  to  the  station-house?    A,  Yes,  sir. 
.    Q.  {Mr.  Iloive.)    Did  you  take  this  man  to  the  cell?    A.  No,  sir. 


20 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


THE  UNFORTUNATE  WIDOW. 
Mary  Townsend  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution  : 
Q.  [By  District  Attorneij.)    What  was  your  husband's  name  ? 
A.  William  Townsend. 

Q.  Where  did  he  reside?    A.  192  Hudson  street. 

Q,  Were  you  home  on  the  occasion  of  this  occurrence  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  AVhere  were  you  ?    A.  I  was  down  to  Mr.  Taylor's,  the  baker. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  your  husband  when  you  went  away  ? 

A.  He  was  in  perfect  health,  playini^  with  the  children. 

Q.  How  old  a  man  was  he  ?    A.  Fifty- five  years  of  age. 

Q,  Those  two  little  girls  who  were  on  the  stand  are  your  children  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  little  one  is  yours?  (pointing  to  a  babe).  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  When  you  came  back,  in  what  condition  did  you  find  him. 
A.  I  found  him  dead.    (Sensation  in  court.) 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  gone?    A.  Not  more  than  ten  minutes. 
Q.  Did  you  see  this  prisoner  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  at  the  inquest. 
Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  in  your  house  before  ?    A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  husband  being  acquainted  with  him. 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  your  husband's  relatives  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  he  has  none  in  this  country. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  acquaintance  with  this  prisoner  in  any  way? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Never  saw  him  before  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

(Mr.  Howe  said  he  would  not  ask  this  witness  any  questions.) 
Dr.  William  Shine,  sworn  and  examined  for  the  prosecution: 

Q.  [By  District  Attorney.)  Did  you  make  a  post-mortem  examination 
of  William  Townsend  on  that  evening? 

A.  The  day  following,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  make  it  ?    A.  Eleven  o'clock. 

Q.  Where?    A.  At  his  residence,  192  Hudson  street. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  what  you  found?  A.  I  found  a  stab  wound, 
penetrating  the  walls  of  the  chest,  traceable  from  the  chest.  I  found  that 
the  heart  had  been  penetrated,  and  the  knife  entered  into  the  substance  of 
the  heart. 

There  was  a  second  wound  on  the  back  of  the  left  hand,  half  an  inch  in 
depth. 

The  third  was  a  slight  wound  in  the  neck,  and  the  wound  in  the  breast 
was  the  cause  of  death. 

Q.  The  stab  was  in  the  left  breast  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

(No  questions  by  Mr.  Howe.) 

The  District  Attorney  said  :  If  your  Honor  please  the  prosecution  is 
closed  and  we  rest  our  case. 

Judge  Ingrahcim  to  Mr.  Howe.  Mr.  Howe  you  will  proceed  with  the 
defense. 

OPENING  OF  THE  DEFENSE. 

Mr.  Howe.  If  your  honor  pleases,  I  do  not  propose  to  make  any  formal 
op?ning,  but  I  shall  call  my  witnesses  and  then  address  the  jury. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


21 


Mr.  Howe  then  called  to  the  witness-stand,  Captain  Jeremiah  Petty ^  who 
was  then  sworn  and  examined  for  the  defense  by  Mr.  Howe  : 

Q.  You  are  Captain  of  the  5th  Precinct  Metropolitan  Police  ? 
A.  I  am,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  your  station-house  to  which  th^'s  prisoner  was  brought  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  visited  him  in  tlie  cell,  did  you  not  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  night  was  that  ? 

A.  It  w^as  betwjeen  eleven  and  half-past  eleven. 

Q.  The  cell  door  was  locked  ?    A.  It  was. 

Q.  And  the  prisoner  was  then  asleep? 

A.  He  was  laying  on  the  bunk,  apparently  a'^leep. 

Q.  You  were  accompanied  by  another  person,  weren't  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  had  been  asleep.    A.  I  do  not,  sir. 
Q.  You  shook  him  and  woke  him  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

THE  PHYSICIANS'  TESTIMONY. 

Dr.  William  A.  Hammond  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe  : 
Q.  Dr.  Hammond,  you  are  a  physician  ?    A,  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Professor  ? 

A.  Professor  of  diseases  of  the  brain  and  nervous  system,  in  the 
Bellevue  Medical  College.  I  pay  especial  attention  to  diseases  of  the 
nervous  system. 

Q.  Doctor,  at  the  request  of  the  District  Attorney  of  this  county,  did 
you  examine  the  physical  organization  of  this  prisoner  ? 

A.  I  have  examined  him  twice.  I  examined  him  on  Sunday,  the  6th 
of  February,  and  yesterday. 

Q  Now,  sir,  in  ref^-rence  to  the  organization  of  his  skull,  did  you  find 
any  peculiarity  about  the  frontal  eminence  I 

A.  I  found  the  left  frontal  eminence  rather  more  deprcs^^ed  than  the 
right,  or  the  right  is  more  prominent  than  the  left,  but  not  very  great. 

Q.  That  is  a  peculiarity  ? 

AN  UNSYMMETPvICAL  SKULL. 

A.  It  is  an  "  umymmetrical  skull,''  as  we  call  it. 
Q.  Is  that  a  malformation  in  a  physical  sense  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Doctor,  you  have  made,  as  you  have  said,  insanity  and  diseases  of 
the  mind  a  study,  an  especial  study  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  for  a  number  of  years. 

MEDICAL  WORKS. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  me  if  you  esteem  Taylor  a  good  authority  on  that  I 

A.  Upon  the  subject  of  insanity  ? 

Q.  Upon  psychology,  upon  the  mind  ? 

A.  ILi  is  an  authority,  but  he  is  not  one  cf  the  best. 

Q.  You  say  he  is  an  authority  ? 

A.  "Yes,  sir;  he  is  an  authority,  particularly  upon  general  medical 
jurisprudence. 

Q.  But  it  embiaces  th:<t  to  which  I  have  r^-ferred  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 


22 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  Now,  as  to  Kay ;  do  you  not  esteem  him  as  one  of  tlie  best? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  one  of  the  very  best. 

Q.  Maudesley  ?    A.  Eqiial  with  Ray;  equally  as  good,  if  not  better. 
Q.  Dean?    A.  I  do  not  think  lie  knows  much  about  it. 
Q.  Trosseau,  an  eminent  French  author? 

A.  lie  is  an  excellent  authority  upon  general  medicine,  and  upon 
general  diseases  of  the  nervous  system,  but  as  regards  general  insanity,  he 
is  not  an  authority. 

Q.  IIow  is  he  in  regard  to  general  epilepsy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  is  good  authority.  • 

Q.  E-quirol? 

A.  He  is  equally  as  good  :  he  is  better  on  insanity. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  Dr.  Oilman?    A.  Yes,  sir;  very  well. 

Q.  You  had  the  i)leasure  of  his  acquaintance.  Doctor,  didn't  you? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  esteem  him  as  a  very  excellent  authority  ?  Q.  Yes,  sir;  and  a 
good  practical  man  in  regard  to  diseases  of  the  brain  while  he  lived ;  but  I 
should  not  regard  Dr.  Gilman  as  a  first-class  authority  on  that  subject. 

Q.  He  was  a  good  practical  observer  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  had  great  experience  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Doctor,  is  not  the  human  mind  at  present  a  very  great  study,  and 
subject  of  inquiry  ?    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  this  country  and  through  Europe  generally?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  Doctor,  are  there  not  new  causes  of  insanity,  that  is,  new  dis- 
coveries of  causes  of  insanity  being  continually  manifested  ? 

A.  There  are  new  circumstances,  owing  to  the  advancement  of  civiliza- 
tion and  of  science,  but  the  general  state  of  facts  are  the  same. 

Q.  Where  there  are  no  signs  of  degeneracy,  is  there  still  room  for  causes 
of  physical  defect,  ^^ithout  science  being  able  to  recognize  them  in  every 
instance  ? 

A.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  sir,  that  if  a  man  is  insane  and  dies,  that  a 
2yost  mortem  examination  will  not  reveal  the  cause  of  it  ? 

Q.  No,  sir,  precisely  the  oppo-ite.  I  mean,  that  during  hfe  may  not 
these  signs  exist  without  your  being  able  to  recognize  ihem  ? 

A.  I  think  not.  I  think  that  with  sufficient  opportunity,  I  could  tell 
whether  a  man  was  insane  or  not. 

Q.  You  would  not  consider  two  visits  sufficient  opportunity  ?  \yould 
not  a  patient  require  watching  for  a  considerable  period? 

A.  That  would  depend  op  the  nature;  I  might  detect  it  in  three 
minutes. 

INSANITY  MIGHT  EXIST. 
Q.  And  yet  insanity  might  exist,  and  escape 'detection  by  you,  in  one, 
two,  or  three  examinations  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.    (Sensation  in  court.) 

Q.  If  the  cells  of  a  man's  brains,  at  the  end  of  a  day  of  great  mental 
activity,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  day  after  a  good  night's  rest,  were  ex- 
amined, tliere  would  not  be  any  difference  detectable,  would  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  the  difference  would  be  detectable,  probably  not  so 
far  as  structure  is  concerned,  but  certainly  so  far  as  analysis  of  the  brain 
matter  is  concerned,  it  could. 

Q.  You  could  tell  whether  it  suffered  great  waste  or  not  ? 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


23 


A.  That  would  be  by  an  examination. 

Q.  Of  course  tliat  would  oidy  take  place  after  deatli  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  And  by  chemical  means?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Doctor,  wbnt  is  the  meaning  of  th«  term  "Anaemia?" 
A.  It  means  deficiency  of  blood.  It  refers  to  deficiency  in  quality  as  well 
as  quantity. 

Q.  A^tumor  or  abscess  of  tbe  brain  may  in  no  way  interfere  with  the 
mental  operations  at  one  lime,  whilst  at  another  it  may  produce  the  great- 
est disorder  of  them  ;  is  that  correct  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  case  of  an  abscess  of  the  brain,  do  not  symptoms  of  mental 
derangement  often  entirely  disappear  for  a  time,  and  then  suddenly  return 
with  gi eater  activity  ?    A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so. 

Q,  Between  the  extremest  cases  of  madness,  therefore,  and  the  highest 
level  of  mental  soundness,  there  will  be  infinite  varieties  shading,  insensibly, 
one  into  another,  so  that  no  man  will  be  able  to  say  positively  where  sanity 
ends,  and  where  insanity  begins  ;  or  to  determine  whether  a  particular  per- 
son is  insane  or  not.    Is  that  correct?  •  . 

A.  With  cert  iin  limitations,  I  think  it  is.  I  think  the  variations  would 
be  as  great  between  any  number  of  cases  of  insanity  as  between  any  num- 
l^er  of  cases  of  health  of  mind. 

THE   LINE  BETWEEN  SANITY  AND  INSANITY  CANNOT  BE 

DRAWN. 

Judge  Ingraham  (to  Dr.  Hammond).  Do  you  mean  by  that,  Doctor, 
that  the  line  is  not  very  gre?t  between  sanity  and  insanity  ? 

Dr.  Hammond.   Yes,  sir;  still  I  think  it  can  be  drawn. 

Mr.  Howe.  Doctor,  what  is  epilepsy?  please  describe. 

A.  It  is  a  disease  which  is  characterized  by  a  loss  of  consciousness,  and 
involuntary  action.    It  is  known  ordin^irily,  as  the  "  falling  sickness." 

Q.  In  Trousseau,  what  does  he  term  it? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  secondary  name  he  gives  it. 

Q.  Have  you  had  experience  with  many  who  have  been  subject  to 
epilepsy  ?    A,  I  have  treated  se\eral. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  has  baen  your  experience  of  their  acts  and  de- 
meanor ? 

A.  Well,  there  are  four  kinds  of  epilepsy,  divided,  according  to  their 
symptoms.  There  is  one  form  the  French  call  Petit  mal^^  and  it  is  sim- 
ply characterized  by  a  slight  vertigo.  The  patient  does  not  fall  in  that, 
neither  has  he  any  violent  spasm.  Then  there  is  another  kind,  what  we 
call  chronic- 

Q.  In  that,  is  there  any  loss  of  consciousness  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  there  is  another  form  io  which  the  patient  falls,  and 
the  face  becomes  black. 

Q.  That  is  the  fit  itself?    A.  Ye,,  sir. 

EPILEPTIC  MANIA. 

Then  there  is  a  fourth  form,  which  is  termed  epileptic  mania,  in  which 
the  individual  is  able  to  perform  various  acts,  and  at  the  time  is  entirely  un- 
conscious. 

Q.  What  is  the  name  of  that  fourth  form  ? 
A.  It  is  called  epileptic  mania.  ^ 


24 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  Have  you  not  found  patients  who  have  committed  extraordinary 
acts,  and  after  their  perpetration,  found  them  to  be  entirely  unconscious  of 
having  committed  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  had  such  cases  in  ray  own  practice,  and  I  have 
heard  of  some  in  the  authority  of  others. 

Q.  That  is,  of  course,  beyond  all  question,  a  species  of  insanity  ? 

A.  It  is  a  species  of  mental  aberration. 

Q.  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  insanity  ?    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  May  not  cerebral  irritation,  sufficient  to  cause  insanity  or  produce 
it,  exist  for  years,  and  death  at  last  occur  from  other  causes,  without  our 
being  able  to  discover  any  morbid  appearance  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  if  we  merely  judge  of  the  appearance. 

Q.  Now  may  not  organic  diseases  of  the  brain  give  rise  to  moral  dis- 
turbances long  before  the  appearance  ?    A  Yes,  sir. 

VOLITIONAL  INSANITY. 
Q.  What  is  volitional*  insanity  ? 

A.  Volitional  insanity  is  that  form  of  insanity  where  a  man  has  no 
control  over  his  will.  It  is  not  a  distinct  form  of  insanity;  it  is  merely  a 
variety  under  which  the  party  knows  what  he  is  doing,  but  he  is  unable  to 
resist  the  impulse. 

Q.  It  is  called  impulsive  insanity  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  You  have  known  some  extraordinary  instances  of  that  ?  have  you,^ 
Doctor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  which  the  patient  has  felt  himself  impelled  violently  to 
perpetrate  crime,  and  has  informed  people  to  get  out  of  the  way. 
Q.  And  will  warn  people  to  escape  him  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  And  commit  homicide  in  some  cases  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

EXPOSURE  OF  A  DEADLY  WEAPON  INCITES  MURDER. 

Q.  Doctor,  the  exposure  of  a  knife,  or  an  instrument  of  death  or 
danger,  in  such  a  case  as  that  which  you  have  last  described,  may  not  that 
incite  and  add  to  the  feeling  to  destroy  life,  and  germinate  it  into  action  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  through  the  principles  of  suggestion,  it  would;  it  might. 

Q.  When  does  the  morbid  activity  of  the  propensity  to  destroy  exist? 

A.  In  impulsive  insanity. 

Q.  With  regard  to  the  family  or  relatives  of  the  sufferer  from  that  dis- 
ease, is  not  the  desire  to  hurt  those  fondly  loved  stronger  than  toward 
strargers  ? 

A.  It  is,  certainly,  in  some  instances.  There  is  a  case  on  record  of  a  son 
who  felt  a  desire  to  kill  his  mother. 

Q.  It  might  apply  to  a  brother  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Also  to  a  perfect  unoifending  stranger  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  but  not  so  much. 

Q.  Not  so  much  as  to  a  relative  or  friend  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  a  crime  is  committed  wilh  an  entire  absence  of  motive,  assum- 
ing that  to  be  the  case,  and  no  evidence  of  insanity  of  the  party,  might  it 
not  be  ascribed  to  one  of  the  causes  which  you  have  mentioned  ? 

A.  It  might  be. 

Q.  Would  not  that  be  the  cause,  in  all  probability,  given  by  you  ? 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 

# 


25 


A.  I  am  not  so  sure  of  that;  I  have  seen  men  fire  into  a  crowd  with 
a  deHberate  design  to  kill  somebody,  and  do  it  from  mere  recklessness. 

Q.  I  mean  where  there  is  no  motive.  I  am  now  assuming  the  entire 
absence  of  criminal  motive,  where  no  criminal  motive  exists;  in  such  a 
case  as  that,  would  you  not  attribute  it,  or  rather  classify  it,  under  that 
which  you  have  last  denominated? 

A.  I  think  I  should  be  inclined  to  think  it  is  the  same. 

Q.  You  are  supoenaed  here  for  the  prosecution  by  the  District  Attor- 
ney ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Not  called  by  the  prosecution  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney.)  You  were  requested  by  me  to  examine 
this  prisoner,  and  to  give  the  results  of  your  examination  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  the  result  of  that  examination  was  ? 

Mr.  Howe.  One  moment.  I  object  to  that,  sir.  It  has  not  been 
brought  out  on  the  examination  in  chief  by  me,  and  it  cannot  certainly 
form  any  part  of  the  cross-examination. 

Judge  Ingraham.  You  brought  out  that  he  examined  the  prisoner  twice  ; 
your  question  was  whether  he  was  requested  by  the  District  Attorney  to 
examine  hirn. 

Mr.  Howe.  Will  Your  Honor  give  me  an  exception  to  that? 

Judge  Ingraham.  No,  sir  ;  there  has  not  been  any  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  prosecution  to  inquire  into  the  the  question  of  insanity  ;  you  offer  this 
from  books,  and  have  asked  him  many  questions  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Howe.  These  witnesses  were  subpoenaed  here  by  the  prosecution, 
and  as  Your  Honor  can  well  understand,  we  are  not  permitted  to  put  such 
questions  as  we  might,  if  they  were  witnesses  of  the  learned  District 
Attorney,  and,  therefore,  I  want  to  hold  my  learned  friend  to  the  same 
rule. 

Judge  Ingraham.  You  can  take  an  exception  if  you  see  fit,  but  there  is 
no  su  ch  thing  as  an  exception  to  an  order  of  proof. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  PRISONER  BY  A  SURGEON. 

District  Attorney  to  Witness.  I  ask  you  if  you  made  an  examination  of 
this  prisoner  ?     Q.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  What  was  it  ? 

A.  At  the  first  examination,  on  the  6th  of  February,  I  asked  him  a 
great  many  questions,  with  a  view  to  testing  his  mental  capacity.  I 
examined  his  cranium  with  my  hands,  and  I  examined  his  cerebral  circula- 
tion. 

At  the  second  examination,  yesterday,  I  measured  his  cranium  in  several 
ways,  and  again  examined  him  and  asked  him  questions.  The  result  of 
the  fir.-t  and  the  second  examinations  which  I  made  was  sufficii-nt  to  show 
me  that  he  was  a  man  of  not  much  below  the  ordinary  mental  capacity. 

I  think  his  mental  faculties  are  undeveloped.  I  know  a  gn  at  many 
men  who  are  below  him  in  intelligence,  beyond  a  doubt.  I  also  ascer- 
tained that  he  had  no  delusions,  that  his  ideas  were  clear,  and  that  there 
was  no  abnormal  excitement  or  depression,  and  no  diseases  of  the  brain, 
so  far  as  I  could  asceitain,  or  of  any  other  organ. 


26 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


I  also  found  that  his  cranium  is  unsymmetrical,  the  right  frontal  emi- 
nence being  more  forward  than  the  left. 

At  the  examination  which  I  made  yesterday,  I  measured  his  cranium 
and  took  the  circumference  at  the  largest  part,  around  the  frontal  bone, 
and  I  found  it  to  be  23  inches.  Measuring  immediately  above  the  ears,  so  that 
the  tape  was  aboi,ve  his  eyebrows,  and  resting  on  his  ear,  it  measured  22  inches. 

Then  measuring  each  half,  to  ascertain  if  there  was  any  difference  in 
the  half  of  the  circumference,  I  found  it  to  be  exactly  the  same,  so  that  the 
preponderance  which  exists  there,  is  accounted  for  on  the  other  side.  The 
two  sides  aie  equal. 

Then  I  measured  the  vault  of  the  cranium,  measuring  from  each  way, 
and  that  was  12-|-  inches.    Those  measurements  are  all  above  the  average. 

From  the  fact  that  he  shows  no  marks  of  imbecility,  and  no  delusion  of 
any  sort,  I  was  inclined  to  think  that  he  is  perfectly  conscious  of  his  condi- 
tion and  situation. 

He  was  perfectly  aware  of  the  fact  that  lie  had  done  something,  but  did  not 
recollect  the  act  perfectly,  he  said ;  but  lie  knew  that  his  life  was  in  danger,  for 
he  inquired  of  me  what  I  thought  his  chances  were.  There  is  no  tumor  of 
the  brain. 

He  carried  on  an  intelligent  conversation.  He  was  aware  of  the  time 
and  the  circumstances  surrounding  him. 

Q.  Have  you  heard  all  the  evidence  in  this  case  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  AVhat  other  reasons  or  signs  do  you  judge  from  that  he  was  sane. 

A.  From  the  fact  that  he  refused  to  go  out,  and  his  saying  that  he  was  a 
brother  of  the  deceased,  and  from  his  remarks  on,  the  way  to  the  station- 
house,  showing  that  he  understood  what  he  did.  A  person  who  does  an 
act  of  that  sort  through  epilepsy,  does  it  unconsciously,  being  unable  to 
speak.    This  must  have  lasted  certainly  half  an  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  on  the  subject  of  his  having  fits  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  asked  him  if  he  ever  had  fits,  and  he  said  no  ;  and  in  a 
person  who  is  subject  to  epileptic  mania,  there  are  always  paroxysms  which 
are  quite  evident. 

POSSIBLE   TO   COMMIT    MURDER  WITHOUT  KNOWLEDGE 

OF  IT. 

But  it  is  perfectly/  2^ossihh,  as  Mr.  Howe  says,  to  perpetrate  a  murder^ 
and  hiow  nothing  about  it.  There  is  a  case  he  has  quoted,  by  Trousseau, 
of  a  judge  on  the  bench,  who  used  to  Icftve  the  bench  and  urinate  on  the 
carpet  of  his  chamber,  and  then  return,  and  not  remember  that  he  had 
been  away. 

Q.  Are  all  these  forms.  Doctor,  which  take  on  the  form  of  violence,  arc 
they  all  arranged  under  the  same  head  ? 

A.  The  authors  differ.  The  fact  of  a  person  killing  another  through  an 
epileptic  fit,  we  would  not  call  it  epileptic  mania. 

Q.  Would  he  not  just  as  soon  kill  a  friend  as  an  enemy?    A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  In  that  form  of  insanity,  or  mania,  or  unconsciousness,  or  whatever  it 
is  termed,  it  is  not  strictly  called  homicidal  mania?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  homicidal  mania  ?  A.  It  is  that  form  where  the  person  is 
conscious,  but  unable  to  resist  it. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


27 


Q.  Unable  to  ref^ist  it,  because  he  is  pushed  forward?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Did  you  discover  in  your  conversation  with  this  man,  first,  or  second- 
ly, any  pigns  of  insanity  or  mania  ? 

A.  No  ;  I  think  his  intellect  is  sluggish  and  undeveloped. 
Q.  Slow,  dull? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  his  mind  and  mental  faculties  haven't  had  the  bene- 
fit of  an  education  to  develop  them  ;  and  I  consider  him  a  man  of  not  a 
very  high  grade,  but  still  I  examined  his  brain,  and  found  it  pretty  well 
nourished  on  both  sides,  and  uj^  to  the  full  standard. 

Q.  Did  you  discover  that  he  had  any  disease  of  any  description  to  effect 
liis  mind  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir;  his  physical  strength  is  good  ;  at  the  same  time  he  is  a  man 
of  low  intelligence. 

Q.  No  disease  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  knows  the  difference  between  light  and  wrong?    A.  Ye=,  sir. 

Q,  (By  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe.)  You  only  made  two  examinations  of  this 
man?   A.  Yes,  sir;  each  one  about  an  hour. 

Q.  And  the  testimony  which  you  have  given,  so  far,  is  jour  opinion,  as 
regards  the  sanity  or  insanity  of  this  man,  based  upon  those  two  examina- 
tions? A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  answer  to  a  former  question,  you  answered  that  cerebral  irrita- 
tion and  disease  of  the  brain  might  exist,  and  you  not  be  able  to  discover 
it?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  simply  stated  my  belief. 

Q.  Of  course  it  ^fc^iight  exist,  and  you  not  be  able  to  discover  it  at  the 
time  ? 

A.  Yes  sir  ;  he  may  have  been  violently  insane  in  his  sleep  that  night, 
and  yet  I  not  discover  it. 

Q.  AVere  you  examined  on  the  trial  of  Cole,  at  Albany? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  a  witness  for  the  defense    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  a  case  which  is  pretty  familiar  to  many  of  us;  in  that  case 
the  defendant  purchased  a  pistol,  if  my  memoiy  is  coriect,  the  day  be- 
fore the  shooting,  was  it  not? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect,  sir,  because  I  did  not  hear  the  evidence  in  the 
case ;  I  did  not  testify  as  to  Cole's  condition  at  all ;  I  was  r^-quested  to  give 
my  opinion  on  a  particular  case,  but  I  nev^r  examined  Cole  until  after- 
ward. 

Q.  You  were  asked  to  give  your  opinion,  and  did,  on  that  trial  before 
Judge  Ingraham,  that  Cole  went  into  the  hottl,  and  shot  Iliscock? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  make  any  examination  of  Cole  then  : 
A.  No,  sir.    Mr.  Brady  simply  detailed  the  phenomena,  as  I  under- 
stood it,  and  he  asked  me  whether  such  or  such  a  thing  might  be. 
Q.  You  gave  your  opinion  that  the  man  might  be  insane  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

It  being  now  4  P.  M.,  the  court  adjourned  to  meet  the  following  morn- 
ing at  the  same  hour.  The  prisoner  was  conducted  from  the  court  room 
to  the  Tombs,  followed  by  a  crowd  so  dense,  and  eager  to  get  a  sight  of 
the  prisoner,  that  an  entire  platoon  of  police  were  compelled  to  accom- 
pany tlie  sheriffs. 


28 


TUE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


At  the  opening  of  tlie  court  on  Tuesday,  the  first  witness  called  was 
Doctor  WilUam  T.  JVealis,  who  was  swora  and  examined  by  Mr.  W.  F. 
Howe : 

Q.  Dr.  Nealis,  you  are  a  physician  for  the  Commissioners  of  Charities 
and  Correction  ?    A.  Yes  sir ;  and  of  the  City  Prison. 

Q.  May  not  cerebral  iriitation,  sufficient  to  cause  insanity,  exi.'-t  for  a 
great  many  years,  and  then  death  occur  from  other  causes,  witliout  our 
being  able  to  discover  during  life  any  morbid  appearance  ?    A.  Ye-,  sir. 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney,)  Is  that_  not  one  of  the  principles  laid 
down  in  the  books  ? 

A.  Ye-,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  a  practising  phys-ician  ? 
A.  Seven  years,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  this  man  (Reynolds)  frequently? 

^1.  Yes,  sir ;  I  examined  him  several  times,  and  this  morning,  sir. 

Mr.  Howe.  I  object  to  this,  may  it  plea?e  the  court,  on  the  cros^-ex- 
amination.  I  asked  the  doctor  one  medical  question,  without  reCerence  to 
the  prisoner  at  all. 

Judge  Ingrahara.  You  asked  these  questions  for  the  purpose  of  going 
to  the  jury  on  the  question  of  insanity,  and  your  purpose  is  to  argue  that 
Ihis  man  may  be  insane,  and  the  District  Attorney  has  a  right  to  put  that 
question  in  examining  or  cross-examining  the  witness,  to  show  that  he  (the 
prisoner)  is  not  insane. 

Mr.  Howe.  Your  honor  knows  that  Dr.  Nealis  was  subpoenaed  as  a 
■witness  for  the  people,  and  the  District  Attorney  did  not  call  him.  I  now 
make  him  a  witness. 

Judge  Ingrahani.  The  question  of  insanity  was  not  raised  then.  The 
District  Attorney  must  answer  it. 

Mr.  Howe.  He  has  a  right  to  rebutt. 

Judge  Ingraham.  Yes,  sir  ;  or  any  other  way. 

Mr.  Howe.  Is  that  your  ruling  ? 

Judge  Ingraham.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Howe.  Then  you  will  let  me  have  an  exception. 

[District  Attorney  to  Witness,  continued). 
Q.  For  what  length  of  time  have  you  conversed  with  him  ? 
A.  Five  times,  and  perhaps  oftener  than  that. 
Q.  How  long  have  those  conversations  lasted  ? 
A.  From  twenty  minutes  to  half-an-hour. 
Q.  Has  he  been  in  the  city  prison  since  this  affair  ? 
A.  He  has  been  there  I  believe  since  the  next  day. 
Q.  Have  you  seen  him  every  day  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  What  impression  was  made  on  your  mind  by  those  conversations  ? 

PERFECTLY  SANE. 

A.  After  a  few  moments  conversation  with  him,  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  he  was  perfectly  sane,  and  he  spoke  to  me  rationally  and  co- 
herently on  every  subject. 

He  seems  to  be  a  man  of  no  education,  at  the  same  time  I  could  not 
find  out  anything  then  that  would  came  me  to  think  he  was  insane. 


THE  TEIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


29 


He  was  not  brought  iuto  the  prison  for  a  couple  of  days  aftersvaid  ;  aftei 
this  happened. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  Dr.  Hammond  said  yesterday,  that  he  (Rey- 
nolds) had  no  delusions.    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  the  same  to  day  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  in  cases  of  mania  or  insanity,  is  a  delusion  one  of  the  marks 
indicaiing  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  with  the  vast  majority  of  cises. 

Q.  In  a  vast  majority  of  c:ises  there  is  a  delusion  where  insanitj 
actually  exists  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you,  for  the  information  of  this  jury,  just  give  us  the  defi- 
nition of  this  term,  insanity,  in  a  practical  way  ? 

A.  It  is  a  mistaken  idea  of  a  fact  which  really  exists;  for  instanj^e,  if  a 
man  saw  a  yellow  daub  on  that  wall,  he  might  imagine  it  was  a  piece  of 
gold.  ^  _  • 

Q.  As  a  general  thing  then,  absence  of  delusion  is  a  pretty  good  evi- 
dence of  sanity?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Townsend,  the  man  who  was  killed  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  never  saw  him  in  my  life. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Howe.)  Did  I  understand  you  to  say,  Dr.  Nealis,  that,  as 
a  general  thing,  the  absence  of  delusion  is  an  indication  of  the  absence  of 
insanity  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  adhere  to  that  answer  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  also  in  a  vast  majority  of  cases,  nine  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  out  of  every  thousand,  the  insane  man  has  a  delusion. 

Q.  Doctor,  do  you  mean  to  tell  us  in  the  face  of  the  authorities,  that  a 
delusion  always  exists  where  there  is  insanity  ? 

A.  I  say  with  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  delusion  generally  exists,  with 
the  insanity. 

Q.  How  many  crises  of  insanity  have  you  se?n  ? 

A.  x\bout  a  thousand.    I  saw  a  case  yesterday  in  Bellevue  Hospital. 

Q.  Was  there  a  delusion  there  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Delusions  exist  in  what  cases  of  insanity  ' 

A.  In  every  case  of  insanity. 

Q.  Does  it  in  epilepsy?    A.  Epilepsy  is  not  insanity. 

Q.  Is  it  not?    A.  No,  sir;  one  attack  of  epilepsy  is  not- insanity. 

Q.  Is  there  a  delusion  in  epilepsy  ?    A.  There  may  and  may  not. 

Q.  Is  there  frequi^nily  a  delusion  in  epilepsy? 

A.  Let  me  explain  what  I  think  epilepsy  is. 

Q.  Epilepsy,  you  say,  ra^iy  exist,  and  does  frequently  ex'st,  without 
delusion?    A.  Ceit linly,  it  does. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  in  epilepsy,  have  you  not  known  people  to  commit  the 
most  extraordinary  acts  ?    A.  1  never  knew  one  to  do  it. 

Q.  You  have  read?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  of  epileptics  committing  homicide  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  lieard  of  it  often,  and  read  of  it. 

Q.  Arc  you  prepared  to  say  that  in  those  cases  there  was  a  delusion  ? 

A.  Certainly  there  was. 

Q.  Existing  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  at  the  time  they  killed  those  people. 
Q.  And  subsiding  after  the  killing?    A.  Yes,  sir. 


30 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  You  examined  this  man,  three  days  after  the  killing,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  two  or  three  days  afterward. 

Q.  Yon  found  hitn  then  perfectly  rational?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  did  not  recollect  anything  about  this  unfor- 
tunate affair  ?    A.  Yes,  sir;  he  said  so. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  that  even  madmen  in  converj-ation  at  times  present 
an  appearance  of  sanity  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  the  most  cunningly  sane  manner  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir  ;  and  sometimes  argue  very  logically. 

Q.  (By  the  Didrict  Attorney.)  Epilepsy  is  a  disease  of  the  nervous 
system  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Epileptic  mania  is  a  different  thing? 

^.•Yes,  sir;  I  think,  sir,  that  epileptic  mania  exists  after  a  long  attack 
of  epilepsy, 

Q.  You  can  di-tinguish  between  the  two  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  epileptic  mania,  in  nine  times  out  of  ten,  or  as  you  used  the  ex- 
pression, in  a  great  majority  of  cases,  delusions  exist?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  there  be  such  a  thing  as  epileptic  mania,  without  a  diseased 
condition  of  the  brain  ?      A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  cannot  exist  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  diseased  condition  of  the  brain  caa  ordinarily  be  detected  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  th;.t  of  mania  can. 

Q.  Now,  from  the  examination  you  have  had  of  this  man,  and  the  con- 
versation you  had  with  him,  could  you  discover  any  evidence  of  epileptic 
mania  at  all  ?  A.  No,  sir;  none  at  all.  I  could  not  find  any  epilepsy  or 
epileptic  mania,  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  [By  Mr.  Howe.)  You  say  epilepsy  cannot  exist  without  a  disease  of 
the  brain  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  said  nothing  of  the  kind.    I  said  epileptic  mania. 
Q.  Can  epilepsy  exist  without  a  disease  of  the  brain  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  first  attack  of  epilepsy  can.  It  may  be  caused  by  some- 
thing else. 

Q.  After  that  has  subsided,  there  would  be  no  evidence  of  its  existence  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Dr.  Reuben  A,  Vance  sworn  and  examined  : 

Q.  (By  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe.)  You  are  a  physician,  residing  in  this  city? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  made  insanity,  the  treatment  of  patients  suffering  from 
nervous  disorders,  your  study  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  subpoenaed  yesterday,  I  believe,  by  the  learned  District 
Attorney  ?    A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  subpoenaed  by  the  prosecution. 

Q.  At  the  request  of  the  District  Attorney,  I  believe,  you  made  an.^ 
examination  of  the  piisoner  ?    A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did  so  on  two  occasions. 

Q.  And  when  you  visited  him  you  found  him  sane  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  he  a  man  of  weak  intellect? 

A.  He  is  a  man  of  uncultivated  intellect. 

Q.  Is  that  weak  intellect  ?    A.  Not  necessarily. 

Q.  In  this  instance  ? 

A.  I  say  he  is  a  man  of  both  a  weak  and  uncultivated  intellect. 
Q.  Did  you  discover  the  same  malformation  of  the  skull  to  which  Dr. 
Hammond  alluded  yesterday  ? 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


31 


J.  I  did.    I  discovered  a  projection  of  the  right  frontal  eminence. 
Q.  Diseases  of  the  brain  may  exist  and  yet  not  be  discovered  on  exami- 
nation, may  they  not  ?    A.  Some  may. 

Q.  There  are  some  which  are  not  discovered  at  the  time? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  have  been  instances  in  which  people  have  acted  pecu- 
liarly ;  no  attention  paid  to  it  at  the  time,  and  in  the  course  of  some  months, 
affection  of  the  brain  has  manifested  itself? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  every  affection  of  the  brain  has  a  beginning. 

Q.  When  we  find  those  in  the  lunatic  asylums,  raving  maniacs,  in  the 
incipient  stages  of  their  madness,  mania,  or  whatever  it  was,  tliere  were 
times  at  which  they  would  be  considered  sane,  even  when*  suffering  from 
mental  disease  ? 

A.  They  would  be  considered  sane  by  an  unprofessional  observer. 

Q.  Even  with  a  professional  examination,  doctor,  may  not  diseases  really 
exist  which  would  not  interfere  at  the  time  with  the  mental  operations,  at 
another  time  produce  the  gravest  disorder  of  them,  then  entirely  disappear, 
and  give  no  traces  of  existence  ?    A.  That  is  possible. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  your  definition  of  epilepsy  ? 

A.  Tt  is  a  chronic  disease  of  the  nervous  system,  and  is  sometimes 
attended  by  loss  of  consciousness. 

Q.  A  patient  may  have  an  attack  of  epilepsy,  producing  impulsive 
insanity,  may  he  not  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  an  attack  of  epilepsy,  are  there  not  instances  of  patients  who 
have  committed  homicide,  and  a  few  moments  afterward  knew  nothing 
wha-tever  of  the  occurrence?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  in  this  instance  would  an  examination  of  the  patient  three 
days  afterward  always  demonstrate  that  epilepsy  had  existed  ? 

A.  In  my  opinion  it  would. 

Q.  In  all  cases  ?    A.  Not  every  case. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  case  of  the  judge  with  the  peculiarity  referred 
to  yesterday  by  Dr.  Hammond? 

A.  But  his  physician  had  ah-eady  told  him  about  that. 

Q.  His  physician  told  him  that  he  was  subject  to  epilepsy? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  advised  him  to  resign. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  your  experience  in  cases  of  impulsive  insanity  ? 

A.  Well,  sir;  what  is  ordinarily  known  as  impulsive  insanity,  is  where  a 
man  who  is  subject  to  disease  acts  in  a  very  impulsive  manner,  involuntary- 
insanity. 

Q.  He  has  no  control. 

A.  No,  sir;  he  may  know  what  he  is  going  to  do,  and  may  not  be  able 
to  prevent  his  doing  it,  but  will  not  afterward  remember  about  it.  Dr.  Ham- 
mond cited  a  case  yesterday  where  a*  man  warned  his  mother  about  what 
be  was  going  to  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  case  which  was  tried  in  Jersey,  in  which  Dr. 
Oilman  testified  that  there  was  disease  of  the  prisoner's  brain,. and  some  five 
medical  gentlemen  testified  that  there  was  not;  the  prisoner  was  executed, 
and  «  post-mortem  examination  revealed  disease  of  the  brain? 

A.  You  told  me  about  that  case. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  knowledge  you  have  of  it  ? 


32 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  EETN0LD6. 


A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  might  have  read  of  it  before,  but  you  recalled  it  to  my 
mind.    That  might  be  possible  ;  a  man  may  err. 

Q.  Doctor,  is  it  possible  that  if  this  prisoner  were  to  die  now,  suddenly 
here,  that  his  brain  miglit  reveal  disease  which  you  have  not  discovered  ? 

A.  Certainly,  it  is  possible,  but  not  probable. 

THE  COUNSEL  "MIGHT"  BE  AFFECTED. 

You,  Mr.  Howe,  might  at  this  moment  have  a  tumor  on  the  brain* 
(Laughter.) 

Mr.  Howe.   I  verily  believe  I  have.  (Laughter.) 
Q.  What  is  cerebral  irritation? 

A.  It  is  an  indefinite  term  applied  to  that  condition  of  the  brain  in 
which  there  is  more  blood  attracted  to  it  than  naturally. 

Q.  That  may  be  from  very  many  causes  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  produces  insanity,  does  it  not  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

^.  Ma/ not  that  exist  in  a  slight  degree,  the  incipient  stages,  without 
jour  being  able  to  discover  it  ?    A.  It  might,  sir. 

Q.  It  might  subside  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  ihere  would  be  evidence  of  its  existence  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  afterward.  There  would  be  evidence  of  its  existence  in  a 
slight  paralysis  of  the  body,  and  a  slight  insensibility  and  delusion  and  hal- 
lucination, and  all  the  signs  indicated  in  a  diseased  condition  of  the  brain. 
I  am  pretty  certain  those  signs  would  be  possible. 

Q.  Doctor,  you  heard  the  testimony  in  this  case,  of  the  prisoner 
holding  the  knife  with  a  grim  tenacity,  after  inflicting  the  blow  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  also  heard  the  testimony  of  two  unnecessary  wounds  being  in- 
flicted, two  additional  to  the  fatal  wound  ?  Are  there  instances  of  insanity 
cited  entirely  in  harmony  with  that  state  of  facts  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  insane  persons  having  held  the  knife,  and  insane  persons  hav- 
ing inflicted  more  than  one  wound. 

Q.  That  i^,  those  wounds  were  motiveless  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney)  Is  the  fact  of  his  head  being  dispropor- 
tioned,  an  evidence  of  his  insanity  ?  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  in  regard  to  this  cerebral  irritation,  which  you  have  given 
the  definition  of,  have  you  an  instrument  by  which  you  can  look  into  the 
brain  and  see  its  circulation  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  that  ? 

AN  INSTRUxMENT  WHICH  PENETRATES  THE  BRAIN. 

A.  It  is  an  ophthalmoscope. 

Q.  How  is  that  done  ?  ^ 

A.  It  is  don^i  by  taking  the  patient  into  a  dark  room,  and  casting  a  ray 
of  light  into  the  eyelid,  so  that  you  are  able  to  see  the  circulation  from 
the  back  part  of  the  eye,  and  that  part  of  the  nervous  system  which  sup- 
plies the  brain. 

Q.  You  made  such  an  examination  in  regard  to  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  how  long  after  this  occurrence  took  place  ? 

A.  The  first  examination  I  made  was  on  the  6th  of  February. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  BETNOLDS. 


33 


Q.  Had  there  been  any  enlargement  of  the  brain  previous  to  that,  could 
you  have  detected  it  in  any  form  ?    A.  I  examined  him. 

Q.  What  was  the  result  of  the  examination,  so  far  as  you  saw  ? 
A.  That  the  circulation  of  the  brain  was  perfectly  normal. 
Q.  Natural  ?    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Brain  well  nourished?  A,  Yes,  sir;  there  did  not  appear  to  beany- 
thing  in  it  at  all. 

ASSUMED  INSANITY. 

It  is  much  easier  for  a  sane  man  to  assume  insanity,  than  for  an  insane 
man  to  assume  saniiy. 

Q.  [By  Mr.  Howe.)  Doctor,  you  do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  poor 
wretch  has  tried  to  assume  insanity  ? 

District  Attorney.  He  has  not  said  any  such  thing. 

Q.  [By  Mr.  Howe.)  Doctor,  you  have  been  asked  about  that  instru- 
ment— is  it  not  a  very  recent  invention  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  say  it  is  infallible  in  its  workings  and  operations  ? 

A.  Certainly  I  do  not. 

Q.  Like  many  other  scientific  inventions  and  appliances,  its  eflBcacy 
is  yet  to  be  tested  ? 

A.  Its  efficacy  is  to  be  ascertained  from  the  man  who  uses  it  and  hia 
skill. 

Q.  Ma.y  not  this  man  have  suffered  from  one  of  the  many  causes  of  in- 
sanity of  which  we  have  spoken  during  this  trial,  and  the  symptoms  have 
subsided  at  the  time  of  your  examination  ?  From  any  one  of  which  you 
have  spoken  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  may  have  suffered  from  the  causes,  but  may  not  have 
been  insane. 

Q.  The  result  of  an  epileptic  fit  following,  would  subside  in  three  or  four 
days  ? 

A.  In  this  state  it  would  not.  I  have  stated  that  in  many  cases  the  ef- 
fects would  have  subsided,  but  that  some  of  the  traces  might  be  discover- 
able.- 

Q.  In  how  many  days  might  it  subside? 

A.  I  have  looked  at  this  tlii^ng  carefully,  and  I  have  watched  two  cases 
of  epilepsy,  and  I  have  seen  the  effects  remain  ten  days. 

Q.  They  are  cases  brought  under  your  care  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  more  than  ten  days  after  the  commission  of  this  murder  that 
you  examined  this  man?    A.  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 

Q.  Will  you  undertake  to  say,  doctor,  that  the  signs  would  have  con- 
tinued for  eight  days?    Do  they  in  every  instance? 

A.  I  cannot  speak  only  of  what  I  have  seen  in  tho=;e  two  instances. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  in  every  case  of  insanity,  the  causes  to  which  I  have 
referred,  that  they  would  continue  for  eight  days? 

A.  I  have  stated  no  definite  time. 

Q.  Cerebral  irritation  might  subside,  and  would  subside,  would  it  not,  in 
some  instances?    A.  Yes,  sir;  the  cause  being  removed,  it  might  subside. 

Q.  [By  Judge  Ingraham.)  Do  you  mean  that  after  an  epileptic  fit  there 
is  always  insanity  ?    No,  sir. 

Q.  Does  any  insanity  follow  an  epileptic  fit  which  disappears? 

A,  No,  sir;  the  insanity  following  an  epileptic  fit  remains. 
3 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


Q.  What  other  symptoms  follow  ?    A.  A  desire  to  sleep. 
Q.  Anything  else  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  there  is  a  peculiar  appearance  under  the  skin,  like  a  flea- 
bite,  and  in  some  cases  there  is  paralysis  in  the  arm  ;  I  have  had  my  atten- 
tion called  to  several  cases. 

Q.  Are  there  any  of  these  symptoms  present  in  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  None  at  all  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  So  far  as  you  have  examined  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

^.  I  believe  Dr.  Hammond  said  that  he  (Reynolds)  had  no  fits? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  said  to  Dr.  Hammond,  in  my  presence,  that  he  had  no 

fits. 

Q.  (Mr.  'Howe.)    This  unsymmetrical  defect  in  the  form  of  his  cra- 
.nium,  I  understand  that  has  produced  insanity  in  some  cases? 
A.  {Judge  Inyraham,).   That  has  been  answered  once,  sir. 

Captain  Jeremiah  Petty  recalled  : 

Q.  [By  Mr.  Howe)  You  stated  yesterday,  captain,  that  you  visited 
this  man  in  his  cell  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  about  this  lamentable  occurrence? 

A.  I  asked  him  what  he  was  there  for  ? 
•  Q.  AYhat  reply  did  he  make  ?    A.  He  did  not  know. 

Q.  Did  he  rub  his  head  and  look  peculiar  ?    A.  Not  at  that  time,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  that  a  murder  had  been  committed  ?  A.  Not  then. 

Q.  Did  you  after waid  ?    A.  Yes,  sir. 

KNEW  NOTHING  ABOUT  THE  MURDER. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  did  not  know  anything  about  it  ?  A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  [By  the  District  Attorney.)    In  any  conversation  you  had  with  him, 
did  he  tell  you  what  he  went  into  Mr.  Townsend's  for?    A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  It  came  this  way,  sir;  I  asked  him  if  he  went  in  there  to  steal,  and 
he  said  he  did. 

Q.  You  have  seen  Townsend,  the  man  who  w^as  killed  ?    A.  Yes,  sir,  . 
Q.  About  what  size  of  a  man  was  he  ? 

A.  About  5  feet  10  inches;  I  saw  him  lying  on  the  bed  when  he  was 
dead. 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  witness's  examination,  Mr.  Howe  said  :  There  is 
one  other  witness  whom  I  shall  call.  He  is  the  principal  actor  in  the  drama. 
I  shall  place  the  prisoner  on  the  stand,  and  permit  the  District  Attorney, 
and  the  jury,  and  the  court  to  examine  him. 

THE  MURDERER  A  WITNESS. 

John  Reynolds^  the  prisoner,  was  then  placed  upon  the  stand,  and  sworn 
in  his  own  behalf. 

Judge  Ingraham  to  the  District  Attorney.  Do  you  w^antto  examine  him  j 
District  Attorney.    No,  sir. 

Judge  to  Mr.  Howe.    Do  you  desire  to  examine  him  ? 
Mr.  Howe.    No,  sir ;  but  some  of  the  jurymen  may  desire  to  ask  him 
some  questions. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  KETNOLDS. 


35 


Q.  By  a  Juror,  Charles  Jones.  Into  whose  place  did  TOii  go  first — into 
the  G:>"ucei's  or  tlie  shoemaker's?    A.  I  don^t  know,  sir. 
Q.  What  brought  you  into  the  grocery  store  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  what  I  did.  I  don't  know,  sir,  that  I  was  in  it 
at  all. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sleep  the  night  before  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  where  I  did  sleop  the  night  before. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sleep  the  night  before  that? 

A.  I  think  I  slept  outside. 

Q.  Outside  where  ?    A.  On  the  street. 

Q.  On  the  unorning  of  the  murder  had  you  vour  breakfast  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  When  you  entered  the  grocery  first,  where  did  you  go  ? 
A.  I  can't  say. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  going  into  the  shoemakers  store  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  (Jo  not  remember  going  in  there  ?    A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  having  asked  the  shoeniaker  for  a  knife  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember,  any  more  than  what  the  captain  told  me. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  knife  from  .the  shoemaker's  store  ? 

A.  I  don't  know. 

This  closed  the  t'^stimony  on  both  sides,  and  Mr.  W.  F.  Howe  pro- 
ceeded to  address  the  jury  as  follows  : 

May  it  please  the  Court,  and  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury :  To  say  that 
I  feel  acutely  the  responsibility  of  this  case,  is  but  to  convey  feebly  to  you 
the  impressions  and  w(.rkings  of  my  heart  at  this  moment;  for  I  cannot  di- 
vest myself,  gentlemen,  of  the  solemn  knowledge,  tha'  to  me,  to  some  extent, 
is  confided  the  life  of  a  human  being.  But,  thank  God,  not  to  me  alone  is 
that  responsibility  confided  ;  it  is  a  common  one,  in  which  we  all  partici- 
pate ;  and,  for  some  good  reason,  known  only  to  IIim  "  through  whom  we 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being,"  it  is  left  to-day  to. you,  by  your  ver- 
dict, to  say  whether  this  poor,  wretched,  animated  piece  of  ruined  nature," 
one,  certainly,  of  the  poorest  of  God's  creatures,  is,  upon  testimony,  such 
as  has  been  introduced,  to  be  strangled  by  the  cord  of  the  hangman,  when 
a  powerful  indication  of  insanity  is  there,  defying  science,  fallible  as  it  has 
proven  itself  in  many  instances — defying  doctors — defying  district  attor- 
neys, and,  in  the  monitory  voice  of  God,  telling  you,  in  a  portion  of  God's 
own  image,  that  you  should  not  h  iny  an  insane  man. 

Genilemen,  that  a  most  revolting  crime — murder,  if  you  please — was 
perpetrated  ;  that  the  sympathies  of  all  of  us  mu-t  be  extended  to  the  ut- 
most to  the  widow  and  the  orphans,  I.  a  Imit ;  that  the  horrid  circum- 
stances, the  details  of  which  ma  le  us  all  shudder,  in  sympathy  with  the 
living,  sorrow  for  the  dead,  and,  perhaps,  at  first,  indignation  against  the  ac- 
cused, are  true,  there  is  no  doubt;  but  in  proportion  to  the  horror  of  the 
crime,  in  proportion  to  ihe  atroci^v  of  the  revoking  details,  so  do  I  positively 
and  with  confidence  urge,  that  the  greater  the  enormity  the  more  extrava- 
gant the  horror,  so  here,  gentlemen,  is  that  man's  proportionate  insanity 
evidenced.  Ask  yourselves  this  question  :  "  Would  any  sane  man,"  shall  1 
say,  would  less  than  fiend,  without  revenge,  without  malice,  without  gain, 
without  notice,  have  committed  so  horrible  a  crime  ? 

And  in  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  this  case,  start  with  that 


86 


THE  TBIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


point.  The  weakest  of  us  never  act  without  motive.  The  hand  is  never 
lifted  to  the  head  vviihout  design  or  motive.  It  is  motive  which  actuates 
each  aciion  in  our  daily  lives;  and  I  start  the  coiisideraiion  of  this  case  by- 
asking  "  What  was  the  rao'ive  of  this  man,  if  sane,  for  the  commission  of 
so  heinous  and  cruel  a  murder  ?  "  . 

But  I  am  prepa'ed  in  the  discharge  of  my  duty,  and  it  is  one  from 
which  I  will  not  shrink,  notsvitlistnnding  public  inaiguation  and  prejudice, 
to  demonstrate  to  you  as  men  of  common  sense^  as  men  who  have  in  your 
hands  this  man's  life,  that  the  testimony,  from  beginning  to  end,  even  to 
the  last  scene  upon  that  stand,  proclaims  in  mighty  voice,  that  permeates 
your  understanding,  and  never  will  be  eradicated  from  ycur  minds,  when 
you  retire  for  deliberation,  that  "Jack  Reynolds"  as  they  call  him,  who, 
without  cause,  and  as  the  District  Attorney  properly  said,  with  no  provo- 
cation, plunged  a  knife,  which  he  had  stolen,  into  the  heart  of  a  man  whom 
he  believed  to  he  his  oivn  brother,  is  an  insane  man.  To  detail  the  testi- 
mony would  be  almost  unnecessary,  for  it  is  fresh  in  your  minds.  You 
heard  from  the  lips^  of  those  poor  litiTe  orphans,  the  circumstances  of 
the  di  ed.  You  heard  the  testimony  of  Kline  who  caught  the  prisoner  on 
the  step,  on  the  top  of  his  victim,  and  you  will  remember  he  stated  that  he 
found  the  knife  in  Reynolds'  grasp,  long  afier  the  perpetration  of  the  fatal 
deed  ;  held  the  prisoner  wiih  a  tenacity  of  purpose  which  speaks  volumes 
that  he  was  insane  ;  for  the  District  Attorney  must  tell  you  that  those  who 
murder  do  not  retain  the  evidence  of  their  guilt.  The  first  impulse  of  the 
'*  SANE  "  assassin  is  to  destroy  the  evidence  of  his  crime,  and  not  cling  to  it, 
as  did  this  imbecile,  when  outside  the  scene  of  blood  and  long  after  the 
perpetration  of  the  deed. 

Stepping  from  the  scene  of  the  knife  and  walking  along  the  street,  he 
resists.  Would  a  sane  man,  without  a  friend  near,  act  thus  ?  Take  the 
case  of  a  murder  committed  in  this  couit-room  by  a  stranger  here,  with- 
out a  friend,  surrounded  by  the  police  —  would  he  attempt  an  impossible 
escape  ?  That  W(  s  resisting  insurmountable  power.  He  resists  upon  the 
street,  and  as  one  witness  described  it,  "  this  frenzied  manj''  and  he  used 
the  word,  but  with  a  subtlety  which  crept  into  his  mind,  and  wiiich  may 
be  excus^able,  thinking  it  was  his  duty  to  say  all  he  could  against  this 
wretched  man,  he  said  it  was  not  exactly  "  frenzy,"  but  he  was  wild  and 
rough. 

Oh,  but  gentlemen,  in  going  along,  he  uttered  not  a  word  about  the 
deed  ;  but  he  said,  "I  can  Jick  any  two  of  you,"  resisted  and  struggled, 
hopeless  maniac  as  he  then  was.  He  was  taken  to  the  station-hou«^e.  He 
stands  in  front  of  the  desk,  and  in  reply  to  the  in  errogation  of  the  sergeant, 
says  his  name  is  "Reynolds,"  that  he  was  born  in  the  "United  States," 
after  ten  minutes  before,  tellinir  one  of  the  witnesses  (the  shoe-maker,  if  I 
am  correct)  that  he  was  a  Scotchman  ! — and  there  was  no  necessity  for 
these  discrepancies  ;  they  only  go  to  evidence  his  wandering  mind,  if  mind 
he  had. 

"  Your  occupation  ? "    "  Thief !" 

Do  sane  people  degrade  themselves?  Has  my  friend,  the  learned  pros- 
ecutor, than  whom  a  more  zealous  or  faithful  official  never  existed,  in  the 
course  of  his  long  experience,  ever  yet  have  arraigned  at  his  bar,  or  known 
a  person  accused  of  crime,  to  say,  "  /  am  a  thief. ''^  Oh,  no !  They  cloak, 
they  shroud,  they  conceal  their  occupation ;  and  they  urge,  and  sometimes 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


37 


■with  good  effect,  their  extreme  respectability.  But  why  did  this  man  enter 
the  slioi-maker's  shop;  why  steal  tiiat  knife,  of  no  value  except  for  the 
inter()r^-trition  which  I  shall  give  by  and  by,  supported  by  medical 
authority  ?  You  may  remember,  gentlemen,  the  question  I  put  to  Dr. 
Hammond,  as  to  the  sight  of  deadly  weapons  eng«mdt-ring  the  desire  to  kill. 
And  I  do  believe  that  wretched  t'cing,  as  he  was  then,  and  is  now,  if  he 
can  feel  remorse  or  sorrow,  if  he  has  mind  yet  left  to  feel  that — wiiich  I 
doubt — maniac  as  he  wms  then,  the  sight  of  that  knife  created  the  desire  to 
kill,  and  he  stole  that  knife  to  take  the  life  of  some  one,  whom  he  cared 
not.  For  whether  it  was  epilepsy,  whether  it  was  mania,  whether  it  was  im- 
pulsive insanity, — let  it  have  assumed  what  form  it  might, — let  science 
designate  it  with  her  fancied  appellations,  and  all  the  learning  with  which 
to  dignify  disease,  disease  was  there  !  A  diseased  mind,  which  prompted 
the  taking  the  knife  I  A  diseased  mind,  ivhich  prompted  the  Viking  also  of 
the  life  of  Townsend  !  But  there  is  a  conversation  at  the  shoemaker's.  See 
if  this  is  not  important.  You  are  told  by  one  of  the  policemen,  Sergeant 
Tuck,  that  this  man  appeared''''  to  have  been  drinking,  and  that  he 
smelled  his  breath,  and  that  there  wa>  some  smell  of  whiskey;  but  the 
conversation  in  the  shoemakers  forbids  that  construction.  I  say  that  the 
prisoner  was  sober  at  the  time,  and  he  had  a  sober  conversation  with  the 
shoemaker,  and  I  asked  how  many  steps  he  ascended,  and  he  said  "  three 
or  four."  He  watched  him  walking  soberly  up  them,  then  he  came  to  the 
scene  of  this  homicide. 

The  first  words  he  uttered  to  the  deceased  were, "  You  are  my  brother ^ 
Was  that  a  delusion  ?  To  that,  my  friend,  Dr.  Nealis,  has  told  you  to- 
day that  this  man  had  no  delusion  ;  but  I  say  the  evidence  contradicts  the 
do.'tor  beyond  a  doubt,  because  it  is  sworn  here  to-day  that  he  said, 
"  You  are  my  brother.^''  What  reply  will  be  made  to  that  ?  It  was 
unqu'^'stionably  a  d.du-ion  I 

Pray,  gentlemen,  what  purpose  could  he  have  in  telling  a  string -r, — a 
man  of  fifty  years  of  age, — a  hale,  hearty,  stout,  corpulent  man,  unlike 
this  lunatic  prisoner  in  features, — unlike  him  in  physical  development,  un- 
like him  in  every  aspect, — for  what  purpose,  I  repeat,  would  a  p  )or,  miser- 
able, dirty,  filth  v,  half  savage,  half  idiotic  wietch,  go  into  that  house  and 
tell  the  deceased  that  he  was  his  brother  ?  If  sane,  gentlemen,  could  that 
operate  ■  upon  one  of  you  to  admit  relationship  which  never  existed? 
Could  it  have  been  for  the  purpo-e  (-f  extortion,  wnicli  may  bo  suggested? 
But  that  idea  must  be  at  once  repelled,  because  it  is  a'>surd  upon  tlie  face  of 
it,  for  there  is  no  evidence,  or  even  suspicion,  of  any  attempteil  extortion ;  so 
thatvwi'.h  the  delusion,  I  say,  that  Vns  man  was  his  brother,  he  entered 
that  store  ;  he  sits  down  upon  a  milk  can — and  I  suppos.^,  gentlemen,  you 
can  picture  that  scene.  This  wretch^id  being  there,  mooJy,  dejected,  his 
braiu  disease  I  fiom  one  of  the  causes  to  which  I  shall  cfdi  your  attention. 
You  remember  Dr.  Hammond  spoke  of  the  quality  and  poverty  of  blood 
generating  disorders.  You  remember  my  asking  one  of  the  witn  esses  if 
this  man's  appearance  had  not  improved  since  his  entrance  to  the  Tombs. 
Even  prison  fare,  an<l  prison  treatment,  have  improved  his  wretched  looks, 
his  blood,  and  his  physique;  and  when  I  tell  you  that,  and  you  look  on 
him  to  d;iy,  \  ou  can  foi  m  a  pretty  accurater  picture  of  him  at  the  lime  he 
was  sitting  on  that  milk  can  in  the  store.  Poor  Townsend  asks  him  to 
leave;  an.l  tijen, —  without  a  ivord. — without  allow. — he  takes  this  knifo 


38 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


and  plunges  it  into  Townsend's  heart.  Now,  if  I  rest  there,  without  an- 
other observation,  ask  your  own  hearts,  restino;  on  th^it  spot,  wh^t  motive 
could  any  sane  man  have  for  such  deliberate,  for  such  revoltinjsr,  murder? 
I  am  content  to  rest  the  issue  of  the  case  upon  that  simple  state  of  facts 
alone,  for  what  answer  can  you  give  as  to  his  motive  to  stab,  with  this 
deadly  weapon,  an  inofFi-nsive,  unoffending  stranger? 

The  killing  of  a  human  being  is  not  murder.  It  is  the  killing  with  a 
bloodthirsty  intent,  and  with  a  wicked  heart.    Did  that  intent  exist  liere  ? 

But  let  us  now  look  at  the  medical  testimony,  and  see  what  bearing  it 
has  upon  this  case. 

The  learned  District  Attorney,  with  the  power  of  this  great  county  at 
his  control,  can  send  forth  his  edict  and  bring  before  you  the  most  eminent 
physicians,  and  the  greatest  ornaments  to  science,  in  tlie  cominunity.  How 
diflerent  with  that  poor,  I  had  almost  said  friendless  man,  but  if  I  had,  it 
would  be  an  insult  to  your  inlelligence,  for  I  believe  now%  as  surely  as  I  am 
here,  that  you  are  his  friends  to  this  extent,  that  you  will  not  permit  him 
to  be  hung,  unless  you  have  no  lingering  doubt  of  his  insanity.  You 
won't  let  his  poverty  condemn  him, — you  won't  place  the  outcast  on  the 
gallows  tree,  when  in  our  Tombs  to-day  are  numbers  of  powerful  assassins, 
— men  of  influence, — men  of  means, — men  of  friends,— men  of  great  re- 
sources— who  have  been  immured  there  for  months  and  months,  and  have, 
so  history  tells  us,  committed  murders  ten  thousand  times  more  fearful  than 
this^  because  done  in  deliberation  and  surrounded  with  intelligence.  They 
have  not  been  brought  to  trial  within  twenty  days  of  the  commission  of 
their  deeds.  They  are  fed  and  pampered,  and  have  luxurious  cells,  and 
able  counsel  employed  !  This  poor  victim  is  friendless  and  alone,  and  it  is 
only  through  the  mercy  of  the  court  that  ray  feeble,  humble  i^ervices  are 
now  t'^idered  to  present  my  views  to  you.  But  for  that  intervention,  this 
man  to  day  could  not  speak,  for  as  I  before  sta*ed,  he  is  without  a  friend 
is  here  "  not  himself^  for  he  has  no  mind,  but  I,  as  his  counsel,  believe  an; 
say  for  him  that  he  is  here  to  day  for  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation. 
Now,  gentlemen,  for  the  poor  outcast,  the  motiveless  murderer,''^  the  man 
with  the  "  unsymmetrical  cranium,"  as  Dr.  Hammond  called  it,  in  the  words 
of  science,  but  which  to  my  humble  inteipretation  means  a  faulty  skull ;  on 
behalf  of  him  let  me  show  you  what  science  says  of  people  in  this  country,  in 
France  and  England,  who  have  committed  worse  crimes,  under  circumstances 
analogous  to  the  state  of  this  man's  mind.  And  the  court  gave  me  per- 
mission to  read  from  these  authoiities  as  a  matter  of  justice,  and  I  think 
that  an  apology  for  detaining  you  would  be  outplace,  for  no  time  can  be  too 
long,  nor  can  any  of  us  make  too  great  a  sacrifice  to  ascertain  whether  we 
should  contiibuteto  the  taking  away  lightly  of  the  life  of  a  human  being. 
And  I  am  sure  that  by  medical  science  I  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate  that 
th3  prisoner  was  irresponsible  for  the  act  for  which  he  is  now  being  tried. 
The  vulgar  notion  of  insanity  is,  that  it  consists  in  an  entire  deprivation  of 
reason  and  consciousness,  but  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  the  insane, 
proves  that  they  are  not  only  perfectly  conscious  of  their  actions,  but  that 
they  reason  on  their  feelings,  and  their  impressions. 

The  medical  te.>timony  discloses  that  monomania  generally  assumes  one  of 
two  forms :  either  the  thoughts  are  lively  and  gay,  or  they  are  oppressed 
with  gloomy  melancholy,  as  was  poor  Reynolds  when  seated  dejected -in  the 
store.    In  the  first  state,  the  persons  will  fancy  themselves  to  be  kings  and 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


39 


queens.  In  the  second  (as  in  Reynolds)  we  find  silence,  seclusion,  sorrow, 
dejeclion.  The  latter  condition  is  called  '■^  melancholia and  is  by  no 
means  an  uncommon  thing.  Melancholia  frequently  leads  to  acts  of  suicide 
or  murder.  In  the  lighter  form  of  the  disease  there  is  no  sign  of  mental 
aberration,  and  the  patient  will  go  through  his  usual  routine  of  duty,  but 
always  witii  some  desponding  air.  In  other  cases,  the  delusion  is  so  well 
concealed  until  the  act  committed  (as  in  this  case)  leads  to  the  in- 

<5UIRY  AS  to  the  sanity. 

My  learned  friend,  the  District  Attorney,  asked  Dr.  Ilammond  as  to 
homicidal  mania,  and  Dr.  Hammond  agrees  with  Dr.  Taylor.  Uomicidal 
mania  is  a  state,"  says  Taylor,  "  of  partial  insanity,  accompanied  by  an  im- 
pulse to  the  perpetration  of  murder^  and  is  called    impulsive  manias 

There  may  or  may  not  be  evidence  of  intellectual  aberration,  but  the 
destructive  impulse,  Lke  a  d<^lusion,  cannot  be  controlled  by  the  patient. 
It  dominates  over  all  other  feelings^  and  leads  a  person  to  destroy  those  to 
ivhom-  he  is  most  fondly  attached. 

Now,  please  do  not  forget  in  this  application,  the  opening  words  of  this 
poor  fellow  to  the  deceased  :  "  You  are  my  brother." 

Sometimes  the  impulse  is  long  felt,  but  concealed  and  restrained  ;  there 
may  be  mental  signs  of  depiession,  loss  of  appetite,  and  then  only  for  the 
first  time  when  the  act  is  committed,  to  appear.  Then  we  are  led  to  con- 
clude, certain  peculiariiies  of  language  and  conduct,  scarcely  noticed  before- 
hand, which  must  have  been  the  symptoms  of  insanity,  and  an  act  of  mur- 
der is  perpetrated  toith  great  deliberation,  and  appa7-enlly  with  all  the  signs 
of  sanity. 

These  cases  are  rendered  so  difficult  by  the  fact  that  there  may  be  no 
distinct  proof  of  any  disorder  of  the  mind,  so  that  the  chief  evidence  of  the 
mental  disorder  is  in  the  act  itself.  Is  not,  then,  the  act  of  Reynolds  stab- 
bing the  man  whom  he  mistook  for  his  brother,  the  special,  demonstrative, 
positive  evidence  of  Reynolds'  insanity  at  that  lime  ? 

Now,  gentlemen,  an  erroneous  notion  may  prevail  that  a  homicidal 
mania  is  easily  to  be  distinguished  from  a  sane  crane,  by  certain  infallible 
signs  and  characters,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  medical  witness  to  display 
in  evidence  ;  but  a  perusal  of  the  evidence  given  at  a  few  trials  will  satisfy 
those  who  hold  to  this  opinion  that  each  case  must  stand  by  itself.  Here  it 
is:  Dr.  Ilammond  says,  '■'■Each  case  must  stand  by  itself.'''  Each  act 
must  have  its  own  signification  to  the  jury  ;  and  that  you  may  draw  the 
distinction  between  the  bui'glar  who  breaks  into  your  house  at  night  and 
intends  to  rob,  and  when  detected  in  the  act,  turns  around  and  fires  the 
pistol  or  strikes  you  with  a  dagger ;  there,  the  motive  of  escape  to  avoid 
detection  and  punishment  is  the  answer  to  the  commission  of  the  oflense, 
because  that  is  the  motive.  So,  the  man  who  finds  that  the  partner  of  his 
bosom  has  committed  adulterous  intercourse  with  a  friend,  buys  a  pistol 
and  shoots  the  adulterer  who  has  deprived  him  of  that  which  is  dearer  than 
life,  invaded  his  domestic  home,  and  made  that  which  was  happy,  forever 
miserable.  There,  the  motive  was  both  jealousy  and  revenge.  "But," 
says  Taylor,  "  each  act  must  judge  for  itselt,"  for  Reynolds  had  no  motive 
to  murder  Townsend.  He  had  taken  nothiqg  there  !  He  had  stolen  noth- 
ing there  !  He  was  not  going  to  be  arrested  !  He  had  not  even  been 
•hurt !  Townsend,  instead  of  oficring  him  an  indignity,  spoke  in  terms  of 
kindness,  and  mildly  expostulated  as  to  the  delusion  which  actuated  him.* 


40 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


"  Yon  are  mistaken,"  said  poor  Townsend.  "  You  must  leave  my  house  ; 
and  then  he  killed  him.  Is  the  motive  there?  Ask  tliat  question  ^gain 
and  again  to  yourselves.  At  each  point  of  your  deliberations,  when  you 
come  to  consider,  K-t  that  intrude!  Do  not  fail  in  this,  but  ask,  "What 
motive?"  But  I  had  pieviously  said,  g^^ntlemen,  that  in  words  of  mild 
forbearance,  the  poor  deceased  said,  ''Please  go  out ;  and  for  tliat 
kindness  of  expression  he  caused  the  blow  of  death  without  any  earthly 
attributable  reason  ;  and  yet  you  are  to  be  asked  to  find  that  he  had  a 
motive,  because  three  doctors,  subpoenaed  by  the  prosecution  at  this  trial, 
and  this  alone,  and  whom  the  prosecution  did  not  dare  to  co//,  and  who  have 
been  taken  by  me  from  the  enemy's  camp,  say  they  did  not  find  prisoner 
actually  insane  at  the  times  they  examined  him.  I  do  feel  justly  and 
honestly  defiant  on  this  point,  and  I  beard  science  in  its  own  den,  and  the 
authorities  I  now  produce,  and  which  I  shall  ref-r  to  hereafter,  the  facts  of 
the  case,  and  the  inspection  of  that  wretched  man  himself,  all  now  potently 
unite  and  compel  you  to  admit  that  this  wretched,  demented  prisoner  had 
no  motive  for  the  assassination  of  Townsend. 

Gentlemen,  look  around  this  vast  assemblage  ;  scan  each  visage  in  this 
court-room  with  care  and  with  deliberate  scrutiny,  and  I  tell  you,  wiihcut 
fear  of  cont  adiciion,  and  I  will  hazard  this  verdict  upon  the  position  I 
advance,  that  there  is  none  here  to-day  (and  if  I  am  not  complimentary  to 
some  at  the  extreme  end  of  this  spacious  court-room,  I  may  be  pardoned) 
amongst  one  of  the  not  most  select  audiences  in  the  world,  upon  whose 
face,  upon  whose  "  uiisymetrically  formed  cranium^''  as  Dr.  Hammond  has 
called  it,  can  you  find  the  delineation  of  insanity,  as  is  plainly  visible  in  this 
little  miserable  maniac,  Jack  Reynolds!  You  cannot,  amongst  this  great 
concourse,  find  one  who  can  descend  to  him  in  appearance  or  intellect. 
He  is  abjectly  poor  !  He  is  abjectly  friendless!  He  is  abjectly  demented  ! 
He  was  placed  upon  the  stand.  Why  did  I  do  that  \  '1  he  District  . 
Attorney,  than  whom,  as  I  before  told  you,  none  abler  preceded  him ;  an 
experienced  criminal  lawyer  long  before  he  became  our  public  prosecutor; 
could  have  cross-examined  that  man,  could  have  gone  back  to  his  history 
from  his  cradle ;  and  with  his  skill,  and  pardon  me  (I  know  he  will,  for 
using  the  word  '' subtlety  in  the  sense  I  mean),  and  with  his  subtlety^  if 
that  man  had  been  sane,  why,  gentlemen,  none  so  able  as  Judge  Garvin  in 
putting  a  dozen  pertinent  questions  to  have  demonstrated  that  beyond  a 
doubt.  I  threw  down  the  challenge,  and  why  ?  Because  I  was  fortified, 
that  idiot  as  he  is,  one  of  you,  or  the  District  Attorney,  would  have  dis- 
covered in  a  few  que^ions  if  his  sanity — if  sane  he  were — and  that  from 
his  own  lips,  you  should  learn  whether  he  committed  this  murder,  knowing^ 
that  he  was  doing  wrong. 

And  believe  me,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  in  the  course  of  a  somewhat 
lengthened  experience  at  the  bar,  I  have  never  known  a  man  accused  of 
murder  submitted  to  the  examination  of  the  jury,  and  of  the  District 
Attorney.  Tiiis  poor  imbecile,  oblivious  to-day  of  the  enormity  of  the 
crime  he  has  committed — in  fact,  entirely  forg«-tful  of  the  perpetration  of 
the  horrid  crime  at  all — has  been  by  me  submitted  to  the  prosecuting 
officer  for  ex•^mination  ;  and  I  can  well  understand  why  my  learned  friend, 
the  District  Attorney,  refused  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity.  He  was 
^afraid!  Afraid  of  an  imbecile!  But  I  was  immeasurably  gratified,  when- 
in  honest  sympathy  and  in  integrity  of  purpose,  one  of  you,  gentlemen,. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


41 


qiic^tioned  this  poor  maniac  as  to  the  circuimtances  ;  and  my  auricular 
faculties  beiiifl^  pretty  g"0d,  I  lieard  one  gentlemen  of  the  jury  suggest 
to  another,  "See  if  he  remembers  going  to  the  shoemakeis?"  And, 
indeed,  a  pertinent  question  it  was.  1  might  almost  say,  that  to  an  extent, 
did  his  life  hang  on  that  answer.  But  Gocl  had  perhaps  ordained  that  the 
idiot  should  not  give  an  apparently  sane  answer  to  that  question;  and  he 
told  you,  in  reply  to  the  intt^rrogatorv,"  /  f/on^  remember  bting  there  at  nlL^^ 
I  cannot  imitate  him,  for  he  is  *'  Nature's  Madman,"  and  he  has  told  his 
story.  It  is  God  who  is  speaking  in  him,  in  volumes  of  powerful  eloquence 
and  dictatorial  language,  to  spare  the  madman,  and  the  Divine  interposi- 
tion will  be  proclaimed  by  your  verdict,  that  a  lunatic  shall  not  be 
hanged  ! 

Now,  gentlemen,  with  regard  to  the  absence  of  motive,  L-t  us  earnestly 
and  carefully  consider  the  doctrines  laid  down  by  our  ablest  recognized  au- 
thorities and  able  judge*,  and  amongst  them  one  of  the  presiding  ju>tices  on 
the  bench.  (Here  the  ler.rned  counsel  read,  at  great  length,  from  Kay, 
Taylor,  Trou-seau,  and  Maudesly,  on  insanity.)  The  criminal  (continued 
Ml'.  Howe)  never  acts  without  a  motive;  it  may  be  the  avoidance  of  some 
personal  inconvenience,  or  the  acquisition  of  pioperty,  or  it  may  be  the 
gratification  of  revenge,  which  I  illustrated,  as  in  the  ca'se  of  the  shoot- 
ing the  seducer  of  a  man's  wife  ;  but  it  is  always  to  accomplish  some  selfish 
object.  The  "  Monomaniac,"  as  distinguished  from  the  criminal,  always 
acts  without  motive,  or  one  so  meagre  as  to  be  itself  direct  evidence  of  de- 
rangement. 

With  the  criminal,  death  is,  therefore,  a  means  by  which  he  seeks  to 
accomplish  some  ulterior  end;  but,  with  the  insane,  it  is  entirelv  divested 
of  that  character,  and  becomes  the  end  in  view,  or  that  which  must  be  so 
regarded,  in  a  sane  person.  Hence,  the  criminal  never  sheds  more  blood 
than  is  necessary  for  the  attainment  of  his  object;  whilst  the  monomaniac 
often  sacrifices  those  within  his  reach,  and  is  never  satisfied  with  the  first 
craving  of  his  destructive  propensity.  Do  you  remember  that  I  a«.ked 
Dr.  Vance  as  to  the  unnecessary  cuts  (there  having  been  no  re-istance  by 
poor  Townsend),  and  the  clenching  of  the  knife, — the  retaining  of  the 
evidence  of  the  deed  c  f  blood  long  atler  the  assassination  had  been  com- 
mitted ?  The  act  of  the  prisoner  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  act  of  a  mad- 
man, regardless  of  time,  place,  or  witnesses. 

Was  not  the  act  of  this  man  regardle  s  of  time — regardless  of  place — 
regardless  of  witnesspss — careless  as  to  who  saw  the  deed  committed  ?  A 
sane  man,  in  broad  day,  without  provocation,  without  motive,  could  never 
have  committed  this  crime  !  A  sane  man,  to  murder  for  revenge,  would 
never  have  perpetrated  the  a?sa>sination  with  witnesses  loi)king  on  !  But  here 
this  poor  demented,  God-forsaken  wretch,  knowing  nothing,  entirely  oblivi- 
ous to  all  the  senses  and  faculties  of  the  human  mind,  went  there,  in  pres- 
ence of  numerous  people,  and  stabbed  poor  Townsend  ;  and,  after  the  stab- 
bing, inflicted  two  unnecessary  wound<,  and  retained  clenched,  for  some  time 
after,  the  instrument  with  ivhich  the  death  was  effected!  !  AVhat  will  you 
say  when  I  tell  you  of  a  fond  father,  who,  tenderly  attached  to  his  wife  and 
children,  in  a  frenzy  savagely  murders  them?  A  fond  mother  destroys  her 
infant!    Would  you  not  unhesitatingly  proclaim  each  insane? 

Gentlemen,  permit  me  now  to  revert  to  the  favorite  auiiiority  of  Dr.  ^ 
Hammond,     Ray  on  Insani/y,^^  in  regard  to  irritation  of  the  brain,  which. 


42 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


you  may  remember  the  medical  witnesses  admitted,  may  have  arisen  from 
very  many  causes,  and  which  it  was  testified  to  miglit  exist,  and  be  subdued 
afterward,  and  no  science  tell  that  it  ever  had  its  place  there.  Now,  it  is 
conceded  lliat  this  disorganization,  this  «ffection  or  irritation  of  the  brain, 
producing  these  insanities,  nui^  have  a  beginning.  Then,  of  course,  as 
with  a  fever,  or  with  a  cold,  which  you  and  I  take,  we  know  that  at  the 
commencement  the  symptoms  are  slight,  the  affection  is  less  painful  than 
after  two  or  three  days,  when  it  increases  with  vigor;  and  then  medical  aid 
is  called  in,  it  goes  along,  gradually  descending  and  subdued.  So  with  the 
irritation  of  tlie  brain  ;  so  t  hese  instances  tell  you, — endorsed  by  the  medical 
witnesses, — that  cerebral  irritation  may  have  existed  in  this  poor  fellow^  and 
yet  not  he  discovered  I !  !  Will  you  dai  e  convict  in  so  extreme  a  case  of 
doubt  ? 

Remember,  gentlemen,  I  implore  you,  "  that  cerebral  irritation^  suffi- 
cient TO  PRODUCE  INSANITY,  may  endure  for  years,  and  death  occur  at  last 
from  other  causes,  without  our  being  able  to  discover  any  morbid  appearance 
at  the  timey  That  w\ns  the  question  I  put  to  Professor  Hammond,  aud  it 
was  answered  (as  the  stenographer's  notes  will  inform  you)  aflSrmatively  by 
Lim.  jNow,  pray,  say,  if  you  can,  why  insanity,  produced  by  ""cerebral  irri- 
tation,^'' did  not-exist,  when  Reynolds,  without  notice,  plunged  the  knife  into 
the  heart  of  Townsend  ? 

You  must  bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  when  cases  of  this  description 
are  subjected  to  judicial  inquiry,  it  is  difficult  to  satisfy  a  ji'iry  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  disease,  because  it  may  have  then  existed,  and  since  abated 
and  disappeared  entirely,  and  you  can  only  judge  of  its  existence  from  the 
facts,  namely,  the  delusion  that  deceased  was  prisoner's  brother,  and  the 
entire  absence  of  motive. 

Now,  gentlemen.  Professor  Ray  tells  us  that  volitional  insanify^^  occurs 
in  a  manner  precisely  similar  to  the  acts  of  the  prisoner;  and  the  learned 
Professor  mentions  an  instance  of  a  syphilitic  patient,  who,  having  recovered 
from  his  disorder,  was  about  to  quit  the  hospital,  when,  suddenly,  without 
the  least  premonition,  he  began  to  vociferate  and  destroy  the  fui'niture  of  his 
room.  He  stripped  off  all  his  clothes,  tore  out  his  hair,  beat  his  head  against 
the  walls,  and  tried  to  bite  and  strike  all  who  approached  him.  He  seemed 
to  be  excessively  frightened,  as  if  pursued  by  somtebody  who  sought  to  take 
his  life.  His  pulse  was  hard  and  quick,  his  body  was  covered  with  a  cold 
sweat,  he  frothed  at  the  mouth,  and  trembled  violently.  In  the  course  of  a 
couple  of  hours — not  eight  days — he  came  to  himself,  and  was  perfectly 
calm  and  cool.  Apply  that  case  to  this  prisoner,  and  form  your  own 
opinion  ! 

I  will  now  read  from  page  152  of  Ray  :  "A  sober  aud  industrious  shoe- 
maker arose  early  one  morning  to  go  to  his  work,  when  his  wife  was  struck 
by  his  incoherent  discourse  and  wild  looks.  He  seized  a  knife  and  rushed 
upon  her,  when  the  neighbors  seized  him  and  prevented  any  damage.  His 
face  w^as  red,  pulse  frequent  afid  raiher  full,  body  covered  with  sweat;  his 
eyes  flashed,  and  his  look  was  wild.  About  noon  he  became  calm,  and 
slept.  In  the  evening  he  had  recovered  his  faculties,  but  had  no  idea  of 
what  had  happened  him^  Connect  that  case  with  the  answers  which  this 
poor  wretch  gave  you,  and  see  if  that  is  not  identical.  But,  permit  me  to 
apply  another  case  :  "A  young  man  laid  down  one  evening  in  good  health. 
Some  persons  entering  the  room,  he  threw  at  them  whatever  he  could  lay 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


43 


his  hands  upon,  until  he  fell  back  upon  ins  bed  exliausted  with  fatiijue.  He 
sang,  cursed,  and  tried  to  get  at  liis  sword,  lie  knew  nobody,  llis  face 
was  not  red,  nor  his  head  hot,  but  his  eyes  were  wild,  and  his  pulse  rather 
full.  The  next  day  he  had  not  the  least  recollection  of  what  had  hap- 
pened." * 

Now,  genLleinen,  on*e  of  the  witnessess  ?poke  of  this  man  Reynolds  as 
being  "  \Yild  ;  "  although,  since  Reynold's  advent  to  this  court-room,  he 
needed  no  witne>s  to  tell  you  that !  At  no  moment  during  this  iiivesiigation 
could  you  have  looked  upon  him  without  seeing  the  wild,  the  vacant,  the 
the  idiotic,  the  imbecile  appearance. 

Let  me  now  present  to  you  another  case  from  that  book  which  Judge 
Garvin  holds  in  his  hand,  Mr.  Rny,  the  author  so  proclaimed  by  Dr.  Ham- 
mond. "A  tailor  of  sober  and  industrious  habits,  after  returning  one  morn- 
ing from  a  walk,  sat  down,  refused  to  eat,  then  suddenly  began  to  upset 
everything  in  the  room,  and  finally  rushed  upon  his  wife,  when  the  neigh- 
bors came  in.    The  next  day  he  had  no  recollection  of  the  occurrence." 

"  One  day  while  passing  along  the  street,  says  Dr.  Ray,  I  was  request- 
ed to  come  in  and  see  a  man  of  a  bilious,  nervous  tempe-rament,  very  sus- 
ceptible of  impressions,  but  robust,  and  free  from  any  bodily  ailments.  He 
was  breaking  the  furniture,  tearing  up  his  clothes,  and  endeavoring  to  as- 
sault his  wife.  His  faced  was  flushed,  his  eyes  wild,  veins  and  muscles 
swelled.  He  cried  and  sang.  On  seeing  me,  for  whom  he  had  long  felt  a 
great  regard,  he  seated  himself  near  a  table,  which  he  kept  striking  with 
his  fist.  We  learned  from  his  friends  that  nothing  had  occurred  to  which 
this  outbreak  could  be  attributed.  He  soon  after  came  to  himself  and 
promised  to  be  quiet.  In  the  evening  he  had  no  recollection  of  the  occur- 
rence." 

If  Dr.  Nealis  had  been  called  in  to  that  man  that  uight,  lie  would  have 
said,  "  /  find  no  evidence  of  insanity  in  him,'"  and  yet  he  breaks  the  furni- 
ture and  assaults  his  wife  !  ! ! 

The  learned  counsel  here  cited  the  case  of  "  i^rm^ia??,"  in  which  Secre- 
tary of  State,  Sew^ard,  was  the  counsel,  and  argued  that  there  was  greater 
reason  for  attributing  insanity  to  Reynolds  than  to  Freeman. 

Mr.  Howe  continued  : — Now,  gentlemen,  we  liave  a  shocking  ca-e  in 
regard  to  absence  of  motive,  given  us  by  Ray  in  these  words  : 

"  In  a  respectable  house  in  Germany,  the  mother  of  the  family  return- 
ing home  one  day,  met  a  servant  against  whom  she  had  no  cause  of  com- 
plaint; she  begged  to  speak  with  her  mistress  alone,  and  threw  herself  upon 
her  knees,  and  entreated  that  she  might  be  sent  out  of  the  house.  Her 
mistress  astoni.shed,  inquired  the  reason  ;  and  learned,  that  whenever  this 
unhappy  servant  undressed  the  lady's  child  she  was  struck  by  the  whiteness 
of  its  flesh,  and  experienced  the  almost  irresistible  desire  to  tear  it  to  pieces. 
She  felt  afraid  that  she  could  not  resist  the  i7npulfe,  and  preferred  to  leave 
the  house." 

Here  is  yet  another  from  the  same  authority  :  "  A  young  lady  experi- 
enced homicidal  desires  for  which  she  could  assign  no  motive.  She  was 
rational  on  every  subject,  and  whenever  she  felt  the  a]-»p?oach  of  this  dread- 
ful piopensity  she  shed  tears,  aud  eijtreated  to  have  the  straight-waistcoat  put 
upon  her." 

Another  yet  succeeds,  gentlemen,  on  all  fours,  \\ith  my  case  :  "  A  cur- 
rier belonging  to  the  bailiwick  of  Freudenstadt,  who  had  quitted  his  family 


44 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  KEYNOLDS. 


in  perfect  health,  was  suddenly  attacked  by  a  paroxysm  of  furious  madness, 
on  the  route  between  Aalen  and  Genunde.  His  first  insane  act  was  to  shut 
himself  up  in  the  stable  with  his  three  horse's,  to  which  he  gave  no  fodder, 
and  when  departing  he  harnessed  only  two  of  his  horsess,  accompanying 
the  carri.jge  mounted  on  the  other.  At  Moglengen  he  abused  a  women ;  « 
at  Unterbobingen  he  alighted  and  walked  before  his  horse  with  a  hatchet 
in  his  hand.  On  the  route  between  the  last  place  and  Hussenhoffen,  the 
first  person  he  met  wiih  was  a  woman  whom  he  struck  several  times  with 
his  hatchet  and  left  her  lying  in  a  ditch  by  the  road  side.  Next  he  en- 
countered a  lad  thirteen  years  old,  whose  head  he  split  open  ;  and  shortly 
after  he  split  the  skull  of  a  man  thirty  years  old,  and  scattered  his  brains 
in  the  road;  and  after  hacking  the  body,  he  lefc  the  hatchet  and  c-irriage 
and  thus  proceeded  towards  Hussenhofen.  He  tnet  two  Jews  on  the  road  whom 
he  attacked,  but  who,  after  a  short  struggle,  escaped  him.  Near  Hussen- 
hofen  he  assaulted  a  peasant,  who  screamed  till  several  persons  came  to  his 
aid,  who  secured  the  maniac  and  carried  him  to  Genunde.  They  after- 
ward led  him  to  the  bodies  of  his  victims,  when  he  observed,  "  It  is  not  I, 
but  my  bad  spirit,  that  has  commited  these  murders." 

Professor  Dean  cites  the  following  extraordinary  case  of  "  volitional 
insanity  : " 

"William  Brown  was  tried  at  Maidstone,  England,  in  1812,  for  strangling 
a  child  whom  he  accidentally  met  one  evening  while  walking  in  the  coun- 
try. He  tO(  k  up  the  b3dy  and  laid  it  on  some  steps,  and  tlien  went  and 
told  what  he  had  done,  requesting  to  be  taken  into  custody.  On  the  trial  he 
said  he  had  never  seen  the.  child  before,  had  no  malice  against  it,  and  could 
assign  no  motive  for  the  dreadful  act.  He  bore  an  exemplary  character, 
and  had  never  been  suspected  of  being  insane." 

Marc,  the  distinguished  m.edical  jurist,  relates,  tliat  passing  over  a  bridge 
in  Paris  one  day,  he  observed  a  lad  sitting  on  the  parapet  of  the  bridge 
eating  his  breakfast,  when  he  was  seized  with  an  almost  irresistible  desire  to 
push  him  into  the  river.  The  idea  was  but  a  flash,  but  it  filled  him  with  such 
horror  that  he  rapidly  crossed  over  to  the  opposite  trottois,  and  got  out  of 
the  way  as  soon  as  possible.  Talma,  the  actor,  also  assured  him,  on  hear- 
ing the  story,  that  he  had  experienced  the  same  propensity  under  very 
similar  circumstances." 

Professor  Dean  also  furnishes  us  with  another  case,  which  I  will  now 
read  : 

"  Almira  Brixley  was  a  married  servant  in  a  respectable  English  family  ; 
and  one  day,  in  the  spring  of  1815,  while  the  nur^e  was  out  of  the  room, 
she  obtained  a  knife  from  the  kitchen  and  cut  the  throat  of  her  master's 
infant  child.  She  went  down  stairs  and  told  what  she  had  done,  inquiring, 
■with  some  anxiety,  whether  she  would  be  hanged  or  transp  )rted.  No  delu- 
sions were  detected  (precisely  poor  Reynohrs  case),  nor  had  she  manifested 
any  other  mental  peculiarity,  except  some  vjolence  of  temper  about  trivial 
ma'ters  a  short  time  before.  See  had  expressed  a  little  dissatisfaction  with 
her  share  of  her  mistress'  cast-off  clothing,  but  beyond  this  there  did  not 
appear  to  be  a  shadow  of  a  motive.  There  was  some  proof,  though  not 
very  definite,  that  she  had  labored  under  some  menstrual  disorders.  She 
was  acquitted  and  sent  to  Bethlehem  hospital." 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  refrT  you  to  Trousseau,  the  celebrated  French 
auThr-ritr,"in  which  he  says:  "The  records  of  courts  of  justice  are  full  of 


THE  TKIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


45 


cases  of  murder  attributed,  by  medical  men,  to  cerebral  defects  and  epi- 
lepsy." 

The  learned  counsel  here  quoted  several  cases  from  Professor 
Trousseau's  work  on  epilepsy,  and  then  continued  : 

Now  please  bear  with  me  whilst  I  take  you  back  to  Dr.  Hammond's 
testimony,  and  to  that  of  Dr.  Vance,  that  epilepsy  might  ex'i^t  at  one  time, 
and  tbe  traces  of  it  7riiffht  remain,  or  might  diaaj^pear,  and  then  apply  the 
evidence  given  on  ti)is  trial,  and  tell  me  if  you  can  attribute  the  deed  to 
anything  but  insanity  ?  Dr.  Vance  says  he  has  two  cases  of  epileptic  mania 
now  under  treatment,  in  which  the  symptoms  remain  ;  but  whether  they 
would  remain  for  eight  days,  he  would  not  undertake  to  tell  you ;  so  that 
let  us  see  if  all  these  cases  of  insanity,  in  their  various  forms,  to  which  I 
have  referred,  may  not,  nay,  do  not,  exist  in  this  poor,  wretclied  man.  And 
yoti  will  remember  that  Doctor  Vance  did  not  examine  Reynolds  until 
eight  days  after  the  tragedy. 

Gentlemen,  you  must  reason  this  case  amongst  yourselves,  in  your  own 
c  jmmon-sense  way.  You  must  not  be  distracted  by  the  medical  terms  you 
have  heard,  or  the  subtle  reasoning  of  science,  or  the  artificial  interpretation 
sought  to  be  arrived  at  from  ihe  circumstances,  as  they  have  existed  in  this 
case.  You  must  take  the  fact,  and  never  lose  sight  of  it,  that  this  poor 
ivretch  had  the  delusion  that  the  murdered  man  was  his  brother  ;  next,  that 
he  was  treated  kindly  by  the  murdered  man,  and  that  he  stabbed  him  with- 
out motive,  and  then  retained  possession  of  the  wcapjon.  They  are  the  prom- 
inent facts  of  the  case  ;  they  are  facts  that  must  strike  your  minds  as  they 
do  mine,  and  upon  them  must  you  find  your  verdict.  Never  m  nd  the  doc- 
tors. They  cannot  displace  them,  nor  can  they  contradict  their  existence. 
Remember  the  introduciion  of  that  beautiful  machine,  designated  the  "  op- 
thalmoscope,"  which  science  had  invented,  and  which  is  paraded  before  us 
as  a  new  discovery.  When  I  put  the  question  "  Was  this  fallible  ?  "  "  Oh, 
yes,"  was  the  answer,  "it  may  be  fallible,  but  it  is  one  of  recent  appliance, 
and  has  never  been  known  to  err;"  which  almost  seemed  to  me  that  men 
of  science  attempted  to  attribute  to  that  instrument  made  by  human  hands, 
the  power  of  Omniscience, — to  know  the  secret  workings  of  the  humanbrain, — 
which,  I  say,  none  but  One  eye  can  see,  and  He  alone.  xVn  army  of  surgeons 
could  never  tell  me,  nor  shall  they  tell  yoii,  as  common-sense  men,  that  it  is 
not  a  matter  of  careful  consideraiion,  whether  this  prisoner  is  sane  at  this 
moment,  aside  from  the  time  he  committed  this  crime,  opthalmoscope  or 
no  opthalinoscope  I 

Look  at  the  case  cited  in  Trousseau,  of  the  judge  who  left  the  bench 
and  urinated  on  his  carpet  in  his  chamber.  You  may  remember  it  was 
given  in  testimony  by  Dr.  Hammond  ;  and,  said  Dr.  Hammond,  as  that 
judge  went  on  with  the  hearing  of  his  case,  passed  upon  it,  listening  with 
reason,  he  had  no  recollection  of  the  peculiar  act  which  he  had  coymnitted. 
In  reference  to  that  case,  Trousseau  makes  this  remark,  and  hear  how  it  ap- 
plies to  this  case  :  "Now,  had  this  patient  quarrelled  with  and  killed  a  man 
in  the  streets,  would  a  magistrate  have  believed  that  an  individual  who, 
five  minutes  before  and  five  minutes  nfier,  was  remarkably  intelligent,  and 
who,  during  this  pretended  nervous  seizure,  seemed  to  have  his  free  will, 
could  commit  murder  under  the  influence  of. an  irresistible  impulse?" 

These  words  seem  to  liave  been  written  by  Supreme  ordination  for  this 
case.  Says  the  learned  Proftssor  Trousseau  :  "  Had  he  quarreled  with  a 
man  and  killed  him  in  the  street,  would  a  magistrate  have  believed  (let  me 


4:6 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


substitute  yoM,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  for  the  word  magistrate)  that  the 
individual,  wlio  five  minutes  before  and  five  minutes  afterward^  was  remark- 
ahly  intelligent^  could  commit  murder  under  the  infiuence  of  an  irresistible 
impulse  P"*  And  thni  reminds  me,  gentlemen,  of  the  case  to  which  I  re- 
ferred, when  General  Hammond  was  giving  his  testimony.  It  was  the  case 
of  ex-senator  Cole,  tried  at  Albany  before  the  learned  judge  who  now  pre- 
sides. Cole  had  a  pistol,  or  procured  one  somewhere,  before  the  commission 
of  the  deed,  when  he  had  time  to  reflect,  and  went  the  next  day  with  de- 
liberation to  the  hotel  where  Hiscock  was,  and  shot  him  dead  ! 

Oh,  but  then^  gentlemen.  Professor  Hammond  was  a  witness  for  an 
ex-senator,''^  I  believe.  Professor  Hammond,  at  all  events,  was  a  witness 
for  a  man  of  vast  property — of  high  standing  in  the  community — who 
commanded  the  highest  intellect  the  bar  of  the  country  afforded — who  was 
surrounded  by  professional  skill  ;  but  who,  never thehss,  committed  that  act 
with  premeditation  and  deliberation  !  He  deliberately  shot  a  human  being, 
and  in  that  case  he  was  pronounced  insane  !  !  !  Sane  a  moment  before, 
and  insane  at  the  commission  of  the  offense,  and  sane  a  moment  after-, 
ward  !  !  ! 

Judge  Tngraham  (interrupting).  Sane  before  the  commission  of  the 
offense,  and  sane  after  ;  but  the  jury  were  in  doubt  as  to  his  sanity  at  the 
time  of  the  perpetration  of  the  murder. 

Mr.  Howe  (continuing).  Very  well;  I  accept  the  amendment.  All  the 
better  for  my  comparison.  This  rich  man — this  rising  man — this  intel- 
lectual man  with  a  finely-formed  head  ;  he  hadn't  "an  unsymmetrical 
SKULL,"  was  pronounced  by  the  jury,  as  the  learned  judge  told  you,  to  be 
not  guilty,  for  the  reason  the  judge  gave  you  !  !  !  And  shall  it  be  said  that 
in  Albany  they  let  go  the  rich  and  powerful,  whilst  in  New  York,  where 
they  dont  bring  to  justice  with  speed,  at  all  events,  the  powerful  and  the 
influential  assassin,  that  you  twelve  men,  singled  out  from  this  great  com- 
munity, will  hang  this  idiot  for  his  poverty  ?  That  you,  in  opposition  to 
all  precedent,  will  say,  we  have  no  doubt  of  his  insanity  ;  will  say,  by  your 
oaths^  that  he  was  sane  at  the  time  he  committed  this  deed,  a  poor,  for- 
saken, friendless  man,  with  the  malformed  skull — the  vacant,  dejected  im- 
becile.   Oh,  yes  !    Hang  him,  and  let  the  ex-senator  go  !  !  !    And  then, 

"  Over  the  stones,  rattle  his  bones. 
He's  only  a  pauper,  whom  nobody  owns." 

But  I  am  greatly  mistaken  in  you,  if  in  this  case  that  result  ever  hap- 
pens. 

Gentlemen,  I  have,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  reviewed  the  testimony. 
I  have  cited  medical  authorities,  showing  cases  where  conversations  and 
acts  of  peculiar  and  extraordinary  nature,  and  even  homicide,  have  been 
committed,  when  people  have  been  unconscious  and  temporarily  insane.  I 
have  brought  cases  right  to  this  man's  door,  and  I  have  gone,  as  I  belore 
said,  into  the  camp  of  the  enemy.  I  am  alone,  unaided,  save  by  the  patent 
fact,  which  they  cannot  deny,  permit  me  to  reiterate,  of  this  man's  idiocy. 
I  have  placed  him  upon  the  stand  !  You  have  heard  the  circumstances  of 
horror  under  which  this  deed  was  perpetrated.  It  now  becomes  your  duty 
to  consider  this  momentous  question — was  he,  BEYOND  ALL  DOUBT,  a 
sane  man  when  he  committed  that  motiveless  deed  ?  And  inasmuch  as 
you  cannot  answer  in  the  affirmative,  you  must  not,  you  dare  not,  convict 
this  prisoner ! 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


47 


The  learned  District  Attorney  may,  and  probably  will,  with  his  power 
and  his  eloquence,  appeal  to  you  as  I  could— nay,  not  as  I  could,  but  as 
they  themselves — those  dear  little  children  and  that  poor  widow.  They 
are  here  to-day,  to  tell  you,  gentlemen,  of  their  father's  murder,  and  I  am 
not  in  error  when  I  sav,  with  ihe  District  Attorney,  tluit  no  eloquence  can 
depict  the  sad  reality  before  you.  They  are  entitled  to  and  they  must  have 
your  sympathies  and  mine. 

But  you  should  not  convict  this  idiot,  because  your  sympathies  are, 
as  mine  are,  with  ihose  orphan  children  and  their  widowed  mother.  I 
warn  you,  and  I  implore  you,  and  whilst  I  feel  it  is,  indeed,  a  hard  task  to  ask 
you,  as  fathers,  for  the  time  to  disregard  their  sufferings,  the  same  human- 
ity, gentlemen,  the  same  propriety  of  feeling,  the  same  humanity  which 
prompts  that  undeniable  sympathy  for  these  little  ones,  asks  this,  also,  for 
him  who  made  them  orphans  I  and  I  tell  you  wdiy  :  becau-^e  it  is  not  a 
cold-blooded  assassination  of  premeditation — of  malice — of  revenge — of 
purpose — or  of  motive  ;  and  because  it  was  a  horiid  deed,  perpetrated  by 
a  lunatic,  and  one  icho  knew  not  ihe  effect  of  his  act  ;  who  knew  not  the 
snffering  he  was  entailing  wpon  them  ;  and  I  verily  believe,  now,  that  the 
ordeal  through  which  we  all  have  passed,  has  had  no  more  el3ect  upon 
that  piece  of  vitalized  clay  (here  counsel  pointed  to  the  prisoner),  than 
upon  this  chair  which  is  beside  me.  He  seems  to  have  no  terror  for  the 
consequences  of  the  deed  he  committed  ;  but  his  entire  demeanor,  gentle- 
men, endorses  the  question  put  by  the  juror,  that  after  the  commission  of 
that  deed,  as  Hamlet  says, 

"  Tlie  rest  ivas  silenceP 

Oh,  how  much  there  is  in  that !  No  knowledge  of  the  wrong,  but  un- 
conscious of  everything — knowing  nothing  of  the  past,  and  alone  in  the 
world  1  Let  me  ask  you  w  hat  will  society  gain  by  strangling  an  insane  and 
lunatic  human  being  ?  I  acquiesce  with  the  District  Attorney,  most  coidi- 
ally,  that  when  murder  has  been  committed,  let  juries  be  prompt  to  render 
their  verdict;  let  the  assassin  be  taken  from  the  couit-room,  and  if  you  please, 
within  a  few  brief  weeks,  let  law  vindica'e  justice  ;  let  the  executioner 
perform  retributive  justice  for  society,  but  be  sure,  gentlemen,  oh,  ba  ter- 
ribly sure,  that  you  hiiXQ  2i  culprit  and  not  &  victim ///  Be  sure,  I  say, 
about  it,  and  no  doubt,  fur  your  conscience'  sake,  and  for  your  everlasting 
peace  !  1 1 

Oh,  gentlemen,  your  position  is,  indeed,  an  awful  and  responsible  one  1 
It  is  the  most  painful,  the  most  trying  that  has  ever  happened  ;  and  I  s-^y, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  it  is  the  most  painful  ordeal  through  which 
y^ou  will  ever  pass.  This  case  now  rests  with  you  ;  I  have  discharged  my 
duty  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  and  according  to  the  dictates  of  my  con- 
science. This  poor  outcast  has  no  paid  advocate  to  defend  him.  I  am 
speaking  for  him  for  charity,  for  humanity,  and  for  justice. 

Oh,  gentlemen,  do  not  deem  me  rude  or  oflensive  when  I  tell  you  to 
discard  the  doctors ;  discard  the  language  of  the  District  Attorney, 
and  with  all  deference,  even  the  dictates  of  the  learned  Judge.  Con- 
sider the  common-sense  facts  of  this  case,  and  take  with  you  to  your  room 
the  picture  of  that  idiotic,  imbecile  man  ;  and  if,  amongst  you  twelve,  one 
or  two  suggest,  "  Oh,  convict  him  ;  hang  him  !  "  then  k  t  his  picture,  pho- 
tographed upon  your  minds,  obtrude  itself,  and  you  will  silence  the  mai^ 


48 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  BEYNOLDS. 


who  a«ks  for  a  conviction.  Oh,  do  not  mistake  lest  you  may  think  that  I 
urge  that  you  should  let  loose  upon  society,  one  who  may  be  dano-erous  to 
us,  as  has  been  proven.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  words  of  the 
statute  on  the  subject : 

"Upon  any  indictment  of  any  oflfense  consisting  of  different  degrees, 
the  jury  may  find  the  accused  not  guilty  of  the  offense  in  the  degree 
charged,  but  may  find  the  prisoner  guilty  on  any  degree  of  such  offense  in- 
ferior to  that  charged  in  the  indictment." 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  this  case,  with  all  its  bearings,  you  may  find  that 
poor  wretch,  if  you  please,  if  you  can  reconcile  it  to  the  evidence,  and  to 
your  consciences,  guilty  of  murder  in  the  first  degree,  and  murder  means 
the  killing  of  a  human  being,  with  premeditation  and  malice — knowing 
that  he  was  killing — knowing  that  he  was  doing  wrong.  I  am  sure  1  may 
safely  discard  that  in  this  case. 

You  have  the  power  and  the  privilege  to  find  him  guilty  of  murder  in 
the  second  degree.  For  that  this  poor  pitiful  object  may  be  immured  with- 
in the  dungeon  walls  for  the  term  of  his  natural  life ;  and  in  that 
event  I  predict  that  when  within  his  coffined  tomb  of  stone.  Death  claims  it's 
victim,  and  when  after  death,  an  examination  of  the  brain  proclaims  insan- 
ity, you  will  remember  the  scene  in  this  court-room,  you  will  remember  my 
feeble  voice  proclaiming  disease  within  that  malformed  skull,  and  then  how 
great!  oh!  hpw  happy,  will  be  your'  congratulations  that  you  did  not  hang 
the  poor  lunatic  outcast — that  you  did  not  hang,  as  a  victim  for  all  the 
refined  and  cultured  criminals  of  great  New  York — the  poor  beggar  who  is 
"  out  in  the  streets.''^ 

Oh  gentlemen,  to  violate  the  living  temple  which  the  Lord  hath  made, — 
to  quench  the  human  flame  within  a  human  being's  breast, — is  an  awful 
and  a  terrible  responsibility  !  And  I  tell  you,  that  if  you  improperly  con- 
demn this  wretched  man,  and  consign  him  to  an  iejnominious  death,  and  a 
post-mortem  examination  shall  hereafter  reveal  his  brain  diseased;  then 
gentlemen,  the  recollection  of  this  day  will  never  die  within  you.  Your 
crime,  for  so  it  will  be, — will  pursue  you  with  remorse,  like  a  shadow 
through  your  crowded  walks.  li  will  hover  beside  you  on  your  pillow.  It 
will  sit  at  your  table.  It  will  ever  be  present  through  the  remainder  of  your 
lives;  and  at  the  Great  Last^^  taking  the  form  of  this  man's  spirit,  it 
will  rise  to  sink  and  condemn  you  before  the  Judgment  Seat  of  God ! !  I 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  foregoing  speech  the  District  Attorney, 
Honorable  S.  B.  Garvin,  spoke  as  follows : 

May  it  please  the  Courts  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

I  have,  through  the  period  of  a  quarter  of  a  century,  tried  a  great 
many  cases  of  great  importance,  not  only  civil  but  crimmal.  , 

And  in  all  such  cases  I  have  found  that  sensible  men  always  sympathize 
with  the  prisoner. 

They  consider  his  position  and  hi^  condition  more  than  that  of  any 
other  pers(;n,  for  the  reason  that  he  himself  is  present,  a  living  man,  to 
answer  for  himself. 

But  in  all  these  cases,  gentlemen,  you  must  remember  there  is  one  who 
is  absent.  He  is  gone.  He  never  appears  on  the  stand.  He  cannot  tesii- 
fy  ;  his  mouth  is  "  sealed  in  death.^^  He  is  away  from  his  own  famiiy, 
^nd  his  children  who  were  around  him  are  with  him  no  more. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  KEYNOLDS. 


49 


You  must  remember  that  when  lie  sat  at  liis  fireside,  he  sat  as  you  and 
I  sit  in  our  own  houses,  under  our  own  vine  and  fig  tice,  with  the  right  of 
no  man  to  invade  it. 

And,  gentlemen,  it  is  protection  that  we  want  for  your  wife  and  mine,  your 
children  and  my  children,  when  we  come  forth  every  day  to  prosecute  the 
ordinary  business  of  life. 

We  do  not  know  whether  we  shall  be  safe  when  we  sit  at  our  own 
table  with  our  children,  after  a  hard  day's  work,  to  enjoy  a  season  of  rest. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  make  these  observations,  that  you  may  be  called 
back  to  consider  this  terrible  deed — an  awful  deed — because  the  prisoner's 
counsel  does  not  stand  up  here  for  one  moment  to  say  but  that  this  prison- 
er did  not  inflict  the  blow  that  sent  Townsend  to  his  long  home  with- 
out a  moment  of  preparation.  He  went  unannointed  into  the  presence  of 
his  Maker,  by  the  hands  of  this  prisoner,  whose  face  he  never  saw  before. 
And  he  knew  it  when  he  went  into  the  house,  just  as  well  as  he  did 
when  he  went  into  the  shoemaker's  shop,  and  stole  the  knife  with  which 
he  committed  that  deed  of  blood. 

In  considering  this  case,  I  trust  you  will  do  it  yourselves  alone,  without 
any  aid  from  me,  after  hearing  such  observations  as  shall  strike  me  as  per- 
tinent to  the  case.  It  is  not  for  me  alone  to  say  that  this  man  shall  be 
convicted  or  acquitted  ;  but  yoa  yourselves,  every  man  on  his  conscience, 
shall  say  whether  or  not  the  case  is  made  out  against  him. 

You  are  responsible.  You  are  responsible  to  yourselves ;  you  are  re- 
sponsible to  the  community  ;  you  are  responsible  to  this  great  people  ;  you 
are  responsible  to  Him  before  whom  you  must  soon  appear,  be  it  longer  or 
shorter. 

The  time  will  come  when  you  must  give  an  account  of  your  conduct 
here  to  day,  whether  it  be  for  good  or  evil. 

Now,  gentlemen,  as  I  said  before,  in  considering  this  case,  the  court 
will  say  to  you,  I  have  no  doubt,  what  the  rule  of  law  is  in  regard  to 
cases  of  this  description. 

I  walk  up  to  my  friend  and  take  his  life  with  a  knife,  or  a  ball,  or 
dagger,  or  by  any  physical  force,  and  who  is  going  to  punish  me  ?  Not  the 
District  Attorney,  nor  anybody  ;  but  a  jury  of  twelve  men,  they  are  to  say 
whether  or  not  crimes  of  this  kind  are  to  be  tolerated. 

We  come  down  to  the  jury  of  twelve  men  in  all  the  great  transactions 
of  life,  civil  as  well  as  criminal. 

Men  hang  by  the  jury's  verdict ;  men  hold  their  property  by  the  ver- 
dict of  a  jury  ;  society  is  protected  by  the  verdicts  of  juries. 

You  are  protected,  by  night  and  by  day,  by  the  verdicts  of  juries. 

Why  is  it  then  that  the  law  has  said  that  when  a  man  takes  the  life  of 
another  he  shall  forfeit  his  own  life? 

It  is  just  to  inflict  the  highest  penalty  known  to  the  law,  which  is  life 
tor  life.  If  you  take  life  you  shall  be  executed.  If  you  take  your  neigh- 
bor's life  you  shall  be  executed. 

It  you  take  the  life  of  any  human  being,  no  matter  who  he  is,  whether 
the  highest  or  the  humblest  man  in  the  community,  you  shall  forfeit  your  lite 
lor  his.  My  life  is  as  dear  to  me  as  is  yours.  It' is  God's  honest  rule;  it 
was  ordained  by  heaven. 

It  should  be  observed  by  all  men,  and  no  sickly  sentjimentality  should 
4 


50 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYN0LD8. 


deter  von,  when  satisfied  tliat  murder,  foul  murder,  has  been  committed, 
from  (loinir  your  duty. 

Is  iliere  any  doubt  I'.bout  this  case  ?  The  case  is  clear  on  the  part  of 
the  pe(>ple.  What  is  the  defense  which  they  set  up?  It  is,  that  this  pris- 
oner is  insane,  therefore  not  responsible.  Have  they  given  us  a  single  fact 
as  to  his  former  liistoiy  ?  Have  they  given  us  a  single  fact  as  to  where  he 
has  bien  ?  what  he  has  been  doing?  or  what  has  been  the  course  of  his 
life  ?  No  foundation  has  been  laid  by  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution, 
or  the  prisoner,  upon  which  to  found  such  an  opinion.  Nothing  on  that 
subject;  and  ihjit  is  the  leascn  that  when  I  rested  the  case  for  the  prosecu- 
tion, I  had  not  a  single  douht  as  to  his  mental  condition,  character,  state  of 
sauiiy,  or  otherwise  ;  and  the  court  will  charge  you  that  sanity  is  always  to 
be  presumed  unless  there  is  some  evidence  lo  the  contrary.  That  is  the 
rule  of  law.  All  men  are  presumed  sane  until  there  is  some  evidence  to  the 
conirary.    Thus  we  stand. 

Prisoner's  counsel  says  there  is  no  motive  for  what  he  did.  Motive! 
Why,  some  of  the  veiy  cases  that  he  reads  here  to-day  arose  fiom  personal 
inconvenience.  It  may  be  from  a  sudden  miff.  It  may  arise  from  laying  a 
hand  on  a  man's  shoulder, — this  depraved  condition  of  the  human  mind 
bursts  foith,  resulting  in  violence.  What  did  this  prisoner  go  in  there  for? 
He  did  not  say,  "You  are  my  brother;"  the  evidence  is,  "I  am  your 
brother."  . 

Was  there  anything  strange  about  that?  The  great  Lord  Chatham  said 
to  a  colored  man,  "You  are  a  man  and  brother."  How  often  is  it  that  men 
say  to  each  other,  "  My  brother  ?  " 

Is  ihere  any  delusion  about  it?  Is  that  one  of  the  things  upon  which 
a  man  can  stand  defended  in  a  court  of  justice  ?    That  won't  do. 

Did  this  prisoner  talk  like  an  insane  man?  Did  he  act  like  an  irre- 
sponsible being  ?  Was  any  portion  of  his  conduct  like  that  of  a  man  who 
did  not  know  what  he  was  about — the  difference  between  right  and  wrong  ? 
He  went  down  into  the  basement,  five  steps,  and  walked  right  through  into 
the  store,  seated  himself  on  a  chair,  and  says,  "I  am  your  brother.  I  wish 
to  stay  all  night."  And  Townsend  told  him,  "You  cannot  stay  here;  I 
liaven't  room  enough  for  my  own  family.  I  can't  keepi  you  ;  you  must  go. 
Please  go."  In  tlie  mildest  possible  manner,  "  Please  go  out."  Prisoner 
went  ijito  the  fiont  part  of  the  store  and  sat  down  on  a  milk  can. 

Mr.  Townsend  seeing  that  he  was  not  going  out,  walked  up  to  him 
again,  and  said,  "  Please  go  out,"  and  put  his  hand  gently  upon  his  collar 
or  shoulder. 

Is  ihere  anything,  even  the  slightest  evidence  of  insanity,  thus  far  ? 
Then  prisoner  turned  around  and  stabbed  him  to  the  heart  in  a  moment ; 
but  by  leason  of  the  great  strength  and  vigor  of  Townsend,  a  man  of  fifty 
years  of  age,  he  carries  ihis  prisoner,  by  main  strength,  to  the  steps,  and  he 
there  falls  down  from  the  loss  of  blood  fnom  the  wound  which  this  prisoner 
had  ])erpetrated. 

^  He  killed  him  because  he  would  not  keep  him  all  night ;  because  he 
would  not  recognize  him  as  a  brother  or  as  a  man.    Motive  ! 

Take  the  case  of  Kodgers.  What  did  he  do  ?  Rodgers  was  walking  with 
two  of  his  comrades  in  the  street,  in  this  city.  He  met  a  gentleman  walk- 
ing with  his  wife,  and  ran  against  them,  and  the  gentleman  asked  him 
why  he  did  so,  and  Piodgers  turned  around  and  slabbed  him  to  the  heart. 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  EETNOLDS. 


61 


He  died  instantly  on  the  ppot,  and  went  to  the  God  who  made  him,  without 
a  struggle,  or  a  groan,  on  the  streets  of  New  York.  I  Msk  you  what  pos- 
sible riiotive  could  Rodgers  have  for  such  a  murder  ?  He  was  tried,  con- 
victed, and  executed. 

The  motive  he  had  in  commilting  crime  was  maUcious,  and  the  law 
says  it  is  malice. 

The  jurors  say  it  is  maljce.  All  the  civilized  world  say?,  if  a  man 
takes  the  life  of  another,  he  does  it  through  malice,  unless  he  can  show 
to  the  contrary. 

Again,  take  the  case  of  Friery,  who  was  tried  in  this  city.  He  went 
into  Lazarus'  place,  and  said,  "  You  are  a  good  fellow,"  and  he  put  his  arm 
round  his  neck',  and  plunging  a  knife  into  his  neck,  killed  him. 

What  was  the  motive  ?    Friery  was  tried,  convicted,  and  executed. 

Now,  again,  genilemen,  was  he  (Reynold.'^)  insane?  Was  going  into 
the  shoemaker  s  shop  any  evidence  of  it.  ?   What  does  he  say  when  there  ? 

"  Have  you  got  any  work  ?  " 

"  Where  have  you  been  to  work  ?"  and  he  says,  I  haven't  had  any  work 
for  60  many  months. 

"What  kind  of  work  do  you  do?"  "Pegoed  work."  The  man  say, 
*'  I  have  no  work  for  you."  A  little  consultation  takes  place  between  the 
parties,  and  he  goes  away. 

Before  he  goes,  he  steals  a  knife,  and  puts  it  in  his  pocket. 

The  next  place  he  goes  into,  he  sees  if  he  cannot  get  something  else,  and 
he  says  so  in  so  many  words.  When  he  goes  into  Townsend's,  he  has  the 
knife  in  his  pocket,  and  is  told,  "  I  cannot  lodge  you." 

You  must  recollect  that  he  had  been  stealing.  Perhaps  he  did  the 
same  thing  in  several  d  fferent  places  during  the  day ;  and  he  comes  along 
after  six  o'clock,  when  darkness  had  come  over  the  earth,  and  he  says  to 
Townsend,  in  the  basement,  "  I  am  your  brother,"  and,  "  I  want  to  stay  all 
night; "  and  he  was  told  that  he  could  not  stay  there,  and  he  leaves  the 
back  room,  and  Townsend  follows  him,  and  puts  his  hand  gently  on  him, 
and  says,  "  You  must  go,"  or  "  Please  go,"  or  whatever  was  the  form  of  ex- 
pression ;  but  I  think  it  was  the  latter,  and  he  stabbed  him. 

What  else  does  he  do  ?    He  resists  with  all  his  strength. 

The  officer  is  unable  to  take  the  knife  out  of  his  hand.  Does  the  coun- 
sel know  any  reason  why  ?  Do  you  know  any  reason  why  ?  Has  any 
sane  man  any  doubt  as  to  the  re^ison  why  ? 

He  expected  to  get  away,  and  he  did  not  mean  to  leave  that  evidence 
of  his  guilt  behind  him. 

One  of  the  witnesses  swears  that  he  lay  perfectly  still  for  a  few  mo- 
ments, and  then  suddenly  jumping  up,  tried  to  run  away. 

On  his  way  to  the  station-house,  some  one  said,  "Hang  him,"  and  he 
said,  "  Hanging  is  played  out." 

Did  he  not  understand  what  he  was  doing  ?  Perfectly. 

Did  he  not  know  what  the  penalty  for  his  crime  was?  Perfectly. 

What  did  he  have  on  his  mind  when  he  said,  "Hanging  is  played  out  2  " 
The  crime  he  had  committed — the  murder  he  h>id  done. 

Again,  gentlemen,  when  he  goes  to  the  station-house,  what  doe>  he  do  ? 

Is  it  very  lemarkable  that  a  man,  when  he  stands  up  before  a  c  ipiain 
of  police,  and  is  charged  with  some  offense,  and  is  asked  what  his  business 
is,  to  say  he  is  a  thief?    The  counsel  thinks  so — I  do  not. 


62 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


I  have  heard  hundreds  say  the  same  thing  in  court. 

Bring  a  man  up  on  an  indictment. 

Are  you  guilty  or  not  guilty  ?    "  Guilty." 

He  takes  the  chances  of  going  to  the  State  Prison,  and  hundreds  of 
them  admit  every  day  they  arc  thieves  and  burglars,  in  our  courts  of 
justice,  and  this  man  said  only,  "I  am  a  thief." 

That  is  liis  business — a  thief;  and  yet  it  is  said,  "  Acquit  him." 

Again,  what  is  the  medical  evidence  on  this  subject  ? 

Now,  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  says,  I  did  not  call  the  medical  wit- 
nesses. 

Why  should  I  call  them  ?  I  have  proved  that  Townsend  was  alive  and 
well,  and  on  the  29th  of  January  he  died,  and  this  prisoner  killed  him. 

I  made  out  my  case.  But  why  should  I  have  the  doctors  subpoenaed  ? 
because,  the  counsel,  when  the  prisoner  was  arraigned  in  this  court  a  few 
weeks  ago,  said  that  his  defense  would  be  insanity. 

What  could  I  do,  as  the  prosecuting  officer,  but  to  subpoena  medical 
men  to  attend,  and  have  this  prisoner  examined,  and  to  Converse  with  him  ? 
and  if  Dr.  Hammond  had  reported  to  me  that  this  man  was  insane,  I 
would  have  said,  let  him  go. 

The  medical  testimony  is  certainly  entitled  to  some  weight.  I  did  not 
call  it  out.  I  haven't  called  these  witnesses.  I  should  not  have  called  a 
witness  at  all  on  that  subject,  but  when  they  were  on  the  stand  I  examined 
them. 

Dr.  Hammond  says  :  "  I  have  had  two  conversations  with  this  prisoner 
of  an  hour  each."    The  result  of  those  examinations  you  have  heard. 

Had  he  been  insane  before  that  ?  Had  he  had  any  disease  of  any  de- 
scription ?    You  have  the  declaration  of  the  prisoner  that  he  had  not. 

The  Doctor  now  says  we  would  not  take  his  word  for  it.  "  We  went 
on  to  examine  him,  and  we  found  everything  in  a  natural  condition." 

Dr.  Nealis  says  that  he  has  examined  him  every  day  since  he  has  been 
in  the  Tombs,  and  talked  witH  him  every  day,  and  saw  no  signs  of  insanity 
whatever.  He  has  attended  700  or  800  to  1000  cases,  and  he  has  not 
found  one  single  indication  of  insanity  in  this  prisoner  at  all. 

Now,  gentlemen,  all  the  facts  in  the  case  go  to  show  that  the  prisoner 
is  sane. 

The  law  is,  that  if  a  man  shall  murder  another  lie  shall  forfeit  his  life 
for  so  doing.  What  have  you  got  to  say  about  this  case.  I  do  not 
propose  to  talk  to  twelve  men  about  it  for  any  length  of  time.  I  propose 
to  discharge  my  duty,  and  then  let  you  do  yours. 

Gentlemen,  the  facts  are  against  this  prisoner  ;  the  medical  testimony  is 
against  him ;  common  sense  is  against  him;  but"  the  counsel  stands  up 
here  to-day,  and  asks  you  to  find  him  insane. 

He  is  guilty  of  murder  in  the  first  degree,  or  else  he  is  not  guilty  of 
anything,  and  must  be  acquitted. 

Let  me  say  to  you — you  give  this  man  his  liberty,  and  let  him  go,  and 
you  give  license  to  every  scoundrel  and  cut-throat  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
to  butcher  anybody  they  see  fit  to,  and  all  they  have  to  do  is  to  go  into  a 
court  of  justice  and  plead  insanity,  and  then  be  discharged. 

I  say,  again,  that  when  crime  is  as  rife  as  it  is  at  present  in  Philadel- 
phia, in  Boston,  in  Brooklyn,  and  all  other  large  cities  in  this  country,  and 
seems  to  be  spreading  and  permeating  the  whole  country  from  one  end  to 


THl£  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


63 


*tlie  other,  and  a  case  is  clearly  and  fairly  made  out,  is  it  right  that  the 
prisoner  should  be  acquitted  ?  Such  a  course  is  fatal  to  the  safety  of  this 
metropolis. 

I  can  stand  it,  perhaps,  and  you  can,  but  v^hen  you  do  it,  rersember 
that  every  time  you  walk  out  after  dark,  the  assassin  may  be  upon  your 
heels  for  the  purpose  of  taking  your  life. 

When  you  leave  your  wife  and  children  in  the  morning,  to  attend  to 
your  daily  avocations,  you  do  not  know  but  when  you  return  you  will  find 
them  ail  dead. 

It  may  be  with  you  as  it  was  in  the  case  of  Townsend. 

When  you  go  up  to  your  bed  at  night,  it  maybe  to  find  a  burglar  with- 
in your  room,  and  if  you  resist  him  your  life  will  be  taken. 

I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  there  is  blood  in  the  air,  and  unless  you  put  a  stop 
to  this  carnival  of  crime  by  your  verdict,  there  is  no  knowing  where  it  may 
end. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  that  I  have  addressed  a  jury  in  this  city  in  im- 
portant cases.  A  year  ago  to-day,  I  stood  here  before  a  jury,  in  the  ca=e  of 
John  Real.  That  case  has  been  pressed  by  the  utmost  eflforts  of  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  and  he  lies  in  the  Tombs  to-day  on  an  appeal  to  the  Court 
of  Appeals. 

It  is  not  my  fault,  or  the  fault  of  the  public,  but  it  is  the  law^s  delay,  and 
we  cannot  help  it.  He  has  a  right  to  all  the  forms  and  delays  the  law  gives 
him.  Other  cases  which  have  been  of  long  standing  are  in  the  Tonabs.  In 
one  case  a  commission  has  gone  to  Liverpool,  and  another  some  where  else. 
One  witness  is  being  examined  on  the  Island  of  Cuba  in  another  case. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  tell  you  why  men  are  not  tried.  'AH  cases  will  be 
tried  when  they  are  ready,  and  not  before.  AYhen  prisoners  are  ready  for 
trial,  we  bring  them  for  trial  before  a  jury ;  and  I  ask  you,  as  sensible  men, 
not  to  be  led  away  by  this  sort  of  nonsense. 

When  a  man  plunges  a  knife  into  the  bosom  of  another  and  kills,  he 
must  have  some  other  evidence  of  insanity  besides  this  theory  of  astute  coun- 
sel, read  from  books,  without  any  facts  to  sustain  it,  before  the  prisoner  can 
be  acquitted. 

You  have  this  case.  I  have  done  my  duty,  and  I  ask  you  to  do  yours ; 
and  I  ask  you  ^to  do  it  courageously,  and  as  high-minded,  cammou-sense 
men,  and  give  us  such  a  verdict  as  will  satisfy  your  own  consciences,  when 
you  shall  stand  in  that  awful  presence  where  the  secrets  of  every  soul  shall 
be  revealed,  and  a  light  like  that  of  ten  thousand  guns  shall  illuminate  the 
inmost  recesses  of  every  heart. 

Judge  Ingraham  then  delivered  his  charge  to  the  jury,  as  follows  : 
Gentlemen  of  the  Jury : 

You  have,  no  doubt,  a  solemn  duty  to  perform.  Solemn,  because  it  af- 
fects the  future  welfare  and  well-being  of  the  man  who  is  on  trial  before 
you,  and  to  him  it  is  indeed  a  solemn  and  important  occasion. 

lou  have  also  a  solemn  duty  to  perform  to  yourselves,  because  you 
have  taken  an  oath  to  decide  this  case  according  to  the  law  and  the  evi- 
dence which  is  presented  to  you. 

You  have  sworn  that  you  will  find  a  verdict. 

Whether  that  verdict  shall  be  for  or  against  the  prisoner.  The  solemn- 
ity not  only  extends  to  the  prisoner  but  to  yourselves,  and  it  is  just  as  im- 


54 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


port  ant  that  you  should  discharge  this  duty  on  your  own  behalf  as  you 
should  to  the  piisoner. 

No  external  influences  should  interfere  with  you  in  this  matter. 

Your  verdict  must  rest  on  this  evidence  and  this  evidence  alone,  and 
you  need  not  go  to  anything  else  or  suffer  any  other  considerations  to  in- 
fluence you,  because  if  you  do,  you  will  do  a  wrong  to  yourselves,  and  fail 
in  the  performance  of  your  duty. 

Nor  should  you  suffer  passion  or  prejudice,  or  any  other  thing  to  in- 
fluence you  at  all  in  this  matter. 

Neither  fear  nor  favor,  neither  public  clamor,  nor  any  other  considera- 
tion should  enter  into  the  minds  of  the  jurors,  when  called  upon  to  pass  on 
a  question  such  as  this. 

Nor  should  you  suffer  ideas  that  some  entertain  in  regard  to  capital 
punishment,  to  weaken  your  judgment  or  affect  your  decision.  You  are 
called  upon  here  to  decide  simply  the  question  whether  he'  is  guilty  of  the 
crime  charged  upon  him.  You  are  to  decide  upon  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  this  man,  and  if  you  find  him  guilty,  I  have  but  to  pronounce  that 
which  the  law  pronounces. 

It  is  the  law,  not  you  or  I. 

With  these  remarks  then,  let  us  endeavor  for  a  few  moments  to  with- 
draw your  thoughts  from  everything  except  the  matter  which  you  have  to 
dispose  of,  and  let  us  look  at  the  evidence  and  the  law  applicable  to  it,  and 
let  us  ascertain  what  the  decision  should  be. 

There  may  be,  gentlemen,  and  there  often  are,  doubts  remaining  in  the 
minds  of  the  jury  in  regard  to  the  proof  which  is  furnished  for  the  purpose 
of  convicting  a  pi'isoner,  and  the  rule  of  law  is  that,  when  such  a  duubt 
exists,  it  shall  be  given  to  the  prisoner;  or,  in  other  words,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  public  prosecutor  to  prove  to  you  the  case  which  he  attempts  to  make 
out  against  the  prisoner.  If  he  fails  to  do  so,  then  the  prisoner  is  entitled 
to  an  acquittal. 

The  prisoner  is  charged  with  the  crime  of  murder.  Murder  in  the  first 
degree  is  killing  a  human  being  without  any  justifiable  or  excusable  cause, 
and  the  person  committing  the  act  has  determined  to  take  his  life. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  that  determination  should  have  been  made  any 
length  of  time  previous. 

The  determination  may  be  made  the  time  the  deed  itself  is  committed. 

If,  at  the  time  the  blow  is  struck,  the  prisoner  has  determined  to  take 
the  hfe,  and  then  strikes  the  blow  and  takes  life,  it  is  murder  in  the 
first  degree. 

There  is  no  pretence  here  that  it  is  justifiable  or  excusable. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  for  me  to  refer  you  to  that.  There  is  no  doubt 
about  the  case  or  the  person  who  committed  it. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  weapon  by  which  it  was  done ;  and  there 
is  no  doubt  as  to  the  consequences  attending  it. 

Now  I  think,  therefore,  that  I  may  confine  myself  to  a  few  remarks  I 
have  to  make  as  to  the  defense  of  insanity  which  is  set  up  here. 

Insanity,  gentlemen,  relieves  a  man  from  all  responsibility. 

If  any  act  is  done  through  the  existence  of  insanity,  the  law  does 
not  permit  such  a  person  to  be  tried  or  punished  for  such  an  act,  when  he 
is  insane. 

So  careful  is  the  law  of  the  life  of  a  human  being  in  this  respect,  that  it 


THE  TKIAL  OF  JAOK  REYl^OLDS. 


55 


neither  permits  him  to  be  tried  or  punished  for  such  an  act  while  insane, 
and  the  question  Ij^re  for  you  is  to  decide  whether  this  man,  at  the  time  of 
the  commission  of  this  act,  was  laboring  under  any  degree  of  insanity^  to 
make  him  irresponsible. 

Now  the  legal  definition  of  insanity,  and  the  definition  of  insanity  by 
physicians,  dift'er. 

A  physician  considers  a  man  insane  who  does  anything  out  of  the  regu- 
lar order  of  nature — anything  which  diff'ers  from  the  normal  state  in  which 
men  ought  to  be. 

The  law  does  not  consider  that  difference.  A  man  may  be  insane  upon 
one  particular  point,  and  not  insane  upon  any  other  point. 

But  tLie  rule  is  this,  that  if  a  man  knows  that  he  has  committed  an  act 
unlawful  and  morally  wrong,  he  is  responsible  for  such  an  act. 

That  is  the  rule  which  has  been  adhered  to  by  our  court,  and  the 
courts  in  England,  and  has  been  repeated  invariably,  from  time  to  time,  in 
all  times. 

There  is  nothing  shown  here  to  us  that  at  any  time  previous  to  the 
commis>ion  of  this  act,  the  prisoner  had  ever  sustained  any  injury  to  pro- 
duce insanity ;  that  he  had  any  of  the  diseases  which  the  learned  counsel 
has  read  from  the  books,  or  that  he  fiad  on  any  occasion  offered  any  evi- 
dence of  insanity. 

Sanity  is  to  be  presumed  :  it  is  always  to  be  presumed  that  a  man  is  in 
the  natural  condition  in  which  he  was  born,  and  that  insanity  is  to  be 
proved  otherwise. 

Take  that  as  a  rule,  and  down  to  the  time  when  this  offense  was  com- 
mitted, there  is  no  evidence  whatever. 

There  is  no  pruof  to  show  that  he  was  ever  insane,  or  ever  afflicted  with 
any  disease  which  would  produce  insanity.  When  you  come  to  the  trans- 
action  itself,  what  was  there  in  that? 

The  prisoner,  certainly,  through  the  whole  of  that  transaction,  showed 
knowledge  in  regard  to  what  he  was  doing. 

His  first  act  was  to  go  into  the  shoemaker's,  and  when  he  sat  down  on 
the  shoemaker's  bench,  he  converged  for  a  while,  and  then  secretly  con- 
cealed the  knife  which  he  found  on  the  bench,  and  with  it  he  left  the 
place. 

Then  he  went  into  the  next  basement — the  grocery  store — and  there  he 
went  through  the  front  part  of  the  store  into  the  back,  where  Mr.Townsend 
was  silting,  and  he  addressed  him  in  the  words  which  have  been  repeated 
two  or  three  times,  calling  him  a  brother,  and  said  that  he  wanted  to  stay 
there. 

In  all  this  there  was  nothing  unusual.  He  was  told  that  he  could  not 
stay  there,  there  was  no  accommodation  for  him ;  and  he  saw  in  that  place 
at  the  time  two  little  girls  and  a  baby,  and  no  others  were  there. 

I  feel  some  hesitation  in  saying  to  you,  but  it  seems  to  me  tliere  is 
some  evidence  in  the  case  to  which  your  attention  has  not  been  directed. 

After  this  act  was  committed,  this  man  was  asked  by  the  ofiicer  whether 
he  went  there  to  steal,  and  he  said  that  he  did  ;  and  on  examination  before 
the  sergeant  in  the  evening,  at  the  police  office,  when  asked  what  his  em- 
ployment was,  he  said  he  was  a  thief. 

Now,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  these  remarks,  it  then  opens  a  road  to  the 
motive. 


56 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


He  saw  no  one  in  that  place  but  Towusend  and  tliese  little  children  ; 
and  if  his  object  was  theft,  it  was  easily  to  be  gratified  after  the  destruction 
of  Townsend. 

^  AVh ether  that  was  his  motive  or  not  I  cannot  say ;  but  I  feel  that  I  am 
doing  no  more  than  my  duty  by  calling  your  attention  to  it  in  this  case, 
because  it  is  in  the  evidence  before  you. 

He  did  not  succeed,  because  the  strength  of  Townsend  was  sucb  as  to 
enable  him  to  bring  him  to  the  door  after  injuring  him. 

After  he  (Reynolds)  was  down  on  the  steps  he  remained  quiet ;  and 
Townsend  was  taken  or  got  up  from  him,  and  he  (Reynolds)  watched  his 
opportunity  and  attempted  to  escape. 

Then,  in  his  passage  to  the  police  station,  he  was  with  the  officer,  and 
we  have  no  evidence  of  anything  tending  to  shoio  insanity. 

Now,  this»is  the  history  of  his  actions,  and  it  is  from  his  actions  we  can 
judge  of  the  sanity  or  insanity  of  the  prisoner. 

The  physicians  have  examined  him,  each  of  them  two  or  three  times, 
and  each  and  all  of  them  have  testified,  without  any  hesitation,  that  they 
never  seen  anything  insane  in  any  way.  They  all  pronounce  him,  from 
that  time,  the  6th  of  February,  to  be  a  sane  man. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  is  the  evidftce  on  this  subject,  and  there  is  no 
doubt,  perhaps,  about  what  has  been,  written  in  the  books  which  have  been 
read  to  you. 

It  is  seldom  that  you  will  find  a  case  where  a  man  is  sane  one  moment 
and  ins^ane  the  next  moment  afterward. 

I  do  not  know  that  there  even  have  been  cases  where  such  occurred. 

This  is  the  only  question  which  is  between  you  in  the  decision  of  this 
case  :  Was  there  a  motive  sufficient  to  justify  it,  or  was  it  a  mere  aberra- 
tion of  the  man's  mind  ? 

Now,  with  all  the  evidence  before  you,  you  are  called  upon  to  decide 
whether  this  man  was  insane  or  not. 

I  need  hardly  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  of  a  law  which  allows  you 
to  convict  the  prisoner  of  lesser  degrees  of  the  same  crime. 

This  is  not  murder  in  the  second  degree,  because  murder  in  the  second 
degree  is  killing  a  man  while  engaged  in  the  commission  of  a  misdemeanor 
or  felony. 

Something  has  been  said  about  the  three  cuts  upon  the  hand,  as  has 
been  explained.  Those  cuts  might  have  been  accidental,  but  the  main 
blow  is  the  one  toward  the  heart,  and  the  others  might  have  very  easily 
taken  place  on  the  steps,  when  he  was  dragging  the  man  out. 

Gentlemen,  I  think  I  have  now  said  to  you  all  that  is  necessary,  and 
will  leave  the  case  with  you. 

It  being  now  2.08  P.  M.,  the  jury  retired,  but  returned  for  instructions 
at  3.05  P.  M. 

Norman  J.  Reeves,  a  juror,  said  :  Have  we  a  right  to  bring  in  a  verdict 
of  a  less  degree  than  the  fii^^  ? 

Judge  Ingraham.  Killing  a  person  without  the  due  authority  of  law, 
is  murder  in  the  first  degree. 

Mr.  Howe.  I  ask  your  honor  to  charge  the  jury  now,  that  they  have 
the  power  to  convict  of  murder  in  the  second- degree. '  That  such  a  verdict 
would  be  valid  and  lawful.    This  the  court  refused  to  do. 

By  a  Juror.  What  is  the  punishment  for  the  second  degree  ? 


THE  TKIAL  OF  JACK  REYNOLDS. 


57 


Judge  Ingraham,  Imprisonment  for  life. 

The  jury  then  retired  a  second  time  (4.10  P.  M.) 

Judge  Ingraham  said  :  One  of  the  jurors  (Charles  Jones)  wants  to  know 
whether  there  was  any  evidence,  direct  or  indirect,  showing  that  the  pris- 
oner was  insane  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  deed. 

The  only  answer  I  can  give  you  to  that  is,  that  there  ivas  no  evidence  at 
any  time  ivhatever  that  there  was  any  insanity. 

The  learned  counsel,  Mr.  Howe,  has  asked  you  to  infer  that  from  the 
transaction  itself;  but  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  this  man  ever  was 
insane  at  any  time,  and  the  physicians  all  say  that  he  was  sane  when  they 
examined  him. 

Chas,  Jones  {Juror).  I  take  this  view  of  the  case,  because  I  want  to 
do  justice, 

Judge  Ingraham.  As  I  said  be'fore,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  Tvas 
insane  at  any  time,  and  the  only  thing  that  the  counsel  furnishes  you  with 
is  that  of  his  acts  during  the  transaction. 

Juror.    Is  it  not  possible  that  he  was  insane  at  that  particular  time? 

Judge.  That  is  for  the  jury  to  decide.  If,  from  the  examination  of  the 
circumstances,  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  insane,  you  have  a 
right  to  say  so. 

The  jury  then  retired,  and  returned  again  at  4.55  P.  M.,  and  the  Clerk 
called  their  names.  They  were  then  requested  to  arise,  and  asked  to  look 
upon  the  prisoner,  and  the  prisoner  upon  the  jurors. 

They  declared  that  they  had  found  the  prisoner  guilty  of  murder  in  the 
first  degree. 

The  jury  was  then  polled,  and  declared  that  the  above  verdict  was 
their's,  individually. 

Assistant  District  Attorney  Fellows^  who  was  present,  arose  and  spoke 
as  follows : 

May  it  please  your  honor,  I  move  that  the  judgment  of  the  law,  which 
this  sentence  carries  with  it,  be  imposed  upon  the  prisoner,  John  Reynolds. 

Mr.  Howe  said:  May  it  please  your  honor,  having  now  discharged  my 
duty,  so  far  as  this  tribunal  is  concerned,  for  this  friendless  man,  I  ask  your 
honor,  as  is  usual,  that  you  will  defer  the  passing  of  the  sentence  until  I 
may  resolve  in  my  mind  what  course  I  shall  adopt  in  reference  to  this  man, 
and  as  to  what  motion  I  will  have  to  make  in  arrest  of  judgment.  I  only 
ask  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Judge  Ingraham.  Let  the  prisoner  be  remanded  till  to-morrow 
morning. 

The  court  then  adjourned  at  5  o'clock  P.  M. 

THIRD  BAY.— Wednesday,  February  23d,  1870. 

The  court  reassembled  at  10.30  this  morning,  and  the  prisoner  having 
been  placed  at  the  bar  of  the  court,  and  duly  interrogated  by  the  clerk  of 
the  court,  what  he  had  to  say  why  sentence  of  death  should  not  be  passed 
upon  him  according  to  law  ;  and  making  no  reply — 

Judge  Ingraham  said:  You  are  to  be  sentenced,  Reynolds,  for  killing 
Townsend,  a  man  with  whom  you  had  no  difficulty,  and  for  whose  killing 
there  was  no  excuse.  Before  doing  it  you  went  into  another  place,  and  there 
took  a  knife  and  concealed  it,  keeping  it  concealed  until  you  found  an  op- 
5 


58 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JACK  KEYNOLDS. 


portiinity  of  stabbing  him,  in  his  own  house,  among  his  own  chiklren,  with 
none  others  present.  What  your  motive  for  doing  it  was  we  do  not  know, 
but  there  is  some  suspicion  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  doing  other  wrong 
and  improper  acts.  You  have  been  tried  by  a  jury  of  very  intelligent  men, 
who  have  given  your  case  a  very  thorough  examination ;  listened  attentive- 
ly to  the  testimony,  and  have  agreed  that  you  are  guilty.  AVith  that  ver- 
dict the  court  does  not  at  all  differ.  /The  murder  was  a  cruel  one  on  your 
part,  entirely  unprovoked ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  excuse  or  justify  it. 
You  don't  now  offer  any  excuse  ? 

Prisoner.  I  don't  know  anything  about  it. 

Court.  Your  conduct  shows  you  did  know. 

Prisoner.  I  don't  know  only  what  they  told  me. 

Judge  Ingraham.  You  may  have  been  excited  by  liquor,  but  that  don't 
excuse  you.  If  a  man  is  allowed  to  indulge  in  drinking  and  then  kills  his 
fcjllow-man,  he  is  not  excused  on  account  of  drinking.  The  law  does  not 
excuse  you  ;  it  holds  you  responsible ;  and  I  have  no  other  duty  left  for  me 
now  but  to  pronounce  upon  you  the  sentence  of  the  law.  It  is  not  the 
sentence  of  the  court,  but  the  sentence  of  the  law,  and  the  law  makes  your 
life  forfeit  to  the  country  for  taking  the  life  of  another.  And  now  I  advise 
you,  before  pronouncing  that  sentence,  to  lay  aside  any  hope  that  you  may 
have  that  this  decision  may  be  altered  or  extended. 

The  character  of  your  offense,  as  well  as  the  great  number  of  offenses 
of  a  similar  kind  that  have  been  perpetrated  continually  in  this  city,  calls 
for  the  execution  of  the  law,  not  only  iu  your  case,  but  in  others  when  they 
shall  have  been  convicted,  and  instead  of  looking  for  hope  here,  I  urge  you 
to  prepare  yourself  for  the  event  that  is  before  you.  When  the  time  comes 
which  will  be  fixed  for  the  execution  of  your  sentence,  you  will  be  executed, 
and  you  will  pass  from  this  world  into  another.  In  the  meantime  you  have 
the  opportunity  afforded  you  to  prepare  for  that  event.  It  is  not  too  late 
for  you  to  make  that  preparation,  and  I  advise  you,  therefore,  to  lay  aside 
the  hope  of  getting  pardoned,  and  seek  for  that  preparation  which  is  neces- 
sary for  you  before  the  time  comes  which  is  fixed  for  your  execution. 

The  sentence  of  the  court  is  that  you  be  carried  hence  to  the  prison 
from  which  you  have  been  brought,  there  to  be  confined  in  close  custody 
until  the  8th  day  of  April,  and  that  on  that  day  you  be  hanged  by  the 
neck  until  you  are  dead,  between  the  hours  of  8  and  2  in  the  afternoon, 
and  may  God  have  mercy  on  you. 

The  clerk  of  the  court,  Mr.  Vandervoort,  then  read  the  death  warrant, 
and  delivered  it  to  Deputy-Sheriff  Isaiah  Rynders,  who  has  charge  of  the 
condemned. 

At  this  announcement  the  doors  of  the  court  were  ordered  to  be  barred, 
to  prevent  the  egress  of  the  vast  audience,  and  the  condemned  man  who 
seemed  in  no  perceptible  manner  affected  by  the  sentence,  was  conveyed  to  an 
adjoining  room,  and  from  thence  to  the  street,  but  before  gaining  the  Tornbs, 
the  crowd  again  flocked  around  him,  and  amidst  the  hootings  and  yelling 
of  the  gamin  he  was  lodged  in  his  dark  cell  on  the  lower  tier  of  the  prison, 
moody  and  dejected,  to  receive  such  spiritual  comfort  as  would  prepare  him 
for  the  next  world. 


i 


